|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through September 23, 2003 | Alan Sharp | 25 | 1 | 9-23-03 6:00 am |
| Archive through December 16, 2003 | Glenn L Andersson | 25 | 1 | 12-16-03 9:34 pm |
| Archive through January 05, 2004 | Alan Sharp | 25 | 1 | 1-05-04 7:21 am |
| Archive through January 20, 2004 | Ally | 25 | 1 | 1-20-04 7:10 pm |
| Archive through February 24, 2004 | Neil K. MacMillan | 25 | 1 | 2-24-04 4:36 pm |
| Archive through February 28, 2004 | Mark Starr | 25 | 1 | 2-28-04 4:21 pm |
| Archive through March 02, 2004 | Dan Norder | 25 | 1 | 3-02-04 3:59 am |
| Archive through March 05, 2004 | Sarah Long | 25 | 1 | 3-05-04 9:23 am |
| Archive through March 11, 2004 | Peter J. Tabord | 25 | 1 | 3-11-04 5:27 am |
| Archive through April 04, 2004 | Paul Jackson | 25 | 1 | 4-04-04 3:28 pm |
| Archive through April 21, 2004 | Glenn L Andersson | 25 | 1 | 4-21-04 11:09 am |
| Archive through September 01, 2005 | Bradski | 50 | 1 | 9-01-05 10:31 am |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 223
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 4:15 pm: | 
|
Hi Bradski
Then you have to answer some simple questions.
How many Ripper victims were there?
How reliable are the witness statements?
Why did Jack stop after Mary Kelly?
I understand that Prof Bower has made some interesting comments on the paper used and owned by Sickert.
But he was NOT the Ripper. Who ever the Ripper was he stopped after Mary Kelly (if That she were) for reason unknown.
Ripper: A Man of discuise? or man not properly seen?
Yours Jeff |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 872
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 11:44 pm: |
|
Hi Bradski,
The statement "the man who killed Sride was identified as the same man who killed Eddows, by Lawende" is extremely misleading, as we don't know what man killed Stride and nobody identified the person seen with Eddowes as the same person Lawende saw.
There is absolutely no evidence that Jack the Ripper used disguises. If alleged witnesses reported seeing people who looked different from each other it is much more likely that they simply didn't see the real killer than that the killer wore a disguise.
And as far as the Openshaw letter goes, there is no reasonable evidence to conclude that Sickert wrote it and no good reason to think that the killer wrote it either.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 10:09 am: |
|
Ripperology is a strange thing. Misguided as they might well be, it does seem as though the crackpots are the only ones who are genuinely attempting to solve the case. The 'serious' or scholarly theorists are expending their energies in the debunking craze. One is a disease, the other is amputation. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 875
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 10:08 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Before anyone can hope to solve the case they must first know what the actual facts of the case are. Getting rid of the cancer infecting the patient isn't amputation. And from what I have seen of the crackpots, they are far more interested in declaring themselves to be correct than in actually trying to solve the case. There's a huge difference.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Uriah Hexam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 11:24 pm: |
|
I have no degrees of any kind, no one has ever accused me of being reasonable, and I have not had an original thought since 1975: am I still allowed to doubt Patricia Cornwell's premise?
As to God's role in all this...I am certified schizo-affective/bipolar and I hear God all the time (and Benny Hill) and he has said nothing to me about Walter Sickert, Patricia Cornwell, or the role of Thomas the Apostle in historical criminal investigations. (He does, however, take a keen interest in 70s pop music and the ridiculous movement of professional sports franchises between major cities.)
Another thought, and I do not mean to indict anyone. Occasionally it seems to me that there are people who spend more time "rooting" for a suspect than trying to understand that part of the truth that may be left to us. I find this curious, as if there are people who think this thing is a badge of honour. "My guy is Jack!" "No, my guy is." Again, I point the bloody knife at no one, but I wonder if anyone else has noticed this phenomenon? Personally, I am clueless as to the Ripper's identity, and shall probably remain so, in spite of my best efforts and yours.
I would love to chat more but the orderly is coming my way with a large butterfly net and hypodermic. |
David Radka
Police Constable
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 8
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
"Before anyone can hope to solve the case they must first know what the actual facts of the case are."
In a pig's eye. Before anyone can hope to know what the actual facts of the case are, they must first solve the case.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 880
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Hi David,
Congratulations! Even with the long list of nonsense you have posted here over the years, that reaches new heights of sheer absurdity. But at least your statement does a pretty good job of explaining how you are able to come up with theories that don't fit with any of the actual facts of the case.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Gordon Bennett
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Well, I should say that you both have a point.
So David is talking about first finding a suspect and then sifting out what the actual facts are, there being so much spurious material and so much missing material. Not a bad idea.
I've come to the conclusion that the trial we have over each suspect and each witness is a farce sometimes. For me I have real difficulty in not taking each witness at more or less face value (within certain limits of idiocy and possible dishonesty). I agree that to question 'facts' is right given the distance in time and the missing documents but to pick a suspect out merely because he was there throws a real spanner in the works (it's just have likely to have been someone who wasn't identified as being there (in fact, more likely)). Witnesses should stay in there homes.
Yours incoherently, from Wells somewhere near Tunbridge.
It's like Jimi Hendrix once said 'Facts, facts, facts. Everyone goes on about us using facts. Do we use facts? Yes, we do.' |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2933
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
In a pig's eye?
I've not heard that one before!!
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 256
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Its a good expression though , isn't it !
Nice to see Mr Radka has registered too , I don't really agree with his theories but he certainly is prepared to look at the case in an original way and to question things.
I haven't really been around at the Casebook for the past two-three years , but I feel Ripperology hasn't made much progress at all since 2003 ; if the case is to be solved then maybe it IS going to be by wild theories and speculations or ' thinking outside the box ' in some way ( barring a signed Ripper confession turning up on ebay that is... ) : I think trying to establish the ' facts ' first maybe be an investigative dead end. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 882
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Hi Simon,
Yes, I can see where some people would find it more convenient to make up their own facts as they go along instead of trying to be based in reality. Reality has a way of being rather inconvenient to people who have preconceived conclusions, especially ones they've staked their reputations on.
Thinking outside the box is a good thing... as long as you go back and have a reality check on those ideas later. Yes, this "box" full of shared assumptions about the case can be and probably is full of a number of mistaken notions. But then a lot of people become emotionally attached to their own ideas and refuse to do reality checks. Heck, some of them wouldn't even acknowledge reality if it smacked them in the face.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
David Radka
Police Constable
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 10
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 9:20 pm: |
|
A propensity to represent oneself as the spokesperson of reality is a sign of intellectual immaturity.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Baron von Zipper
Police Constable
Username: Baron
Post Number: 2
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 9:36 pm: |
|
Hey all,
I was wondering if anyone out there has a complete list of anyone that could have visited Whitechapel in 1888. Since we can't seem to get rid of Sickert, the Royal Conspiracy, and Maybrick. I thought we could add a few more suspects.
Cheers,
Mike |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 936
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 9:58 pm: |
|
Baron Von Zipper....
Please check out the Stephenson threads. He was there for certain for 4 1/2 months...
Yo R.J. !!
"the crackpots are the only ones who are genuinely attempting to solve the case. The 'serious' or scholarly theorists are expending their energies in the debunking craze.."
I can't go to sleep now not knowing which category I fit in !! I'd like to help solve the sumbitch,but at the same time I'd love to participate in exonerating the guy I think could have done it..
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 739
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 10:17 pm: |
|
Howard,
I can't go to sleep now not knowing which category I fit in !!
Some questions are better left unanswered.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Baron von Zipper
Police Constable
Username: Baron
Post Number: 3
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Howard,
I was being sarcastic. Notice that I said, "anyone".
Can't blame a guy for trying. The sarcastics are the ones that should be blamed for everything.
Mike |
Baron von Zipper
Police Constable
Username: Baron
Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Uriah Hexum,
You are allowed to belive whatever you want. I agree with you about the possessiveness some folks have with their pet theories regardless of what the truth or truths seem to be. In fact, I will agree with most anything you say so long as you don't hurt me.
Yours,
Mike |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Ralph Waldo Emerson |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 708
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 4:02 pm: |
|
Howard--Let me rephrase it. I don't see Patricia Cornwell as being a "crank" in the tradition of, say, Stephen Knight, even though Sickert is very much part of that tradition. I see her as a natural result and extension of the pop-Psychology, F.B.I. Behavioral Science Unit, "sexual serial killer", profiling culture. She breaths it with every breath. She is a true believer in the ideology and regardless of how they may feel about her errors she talks the same lingo that 75% of the folks on these boards talk. Thus, I am rather bemused by her critics, because they seemingly wish to bash her 'facts,' while they, themselves still embrace the ideology. And as far as I am concerned, the ideology is a false one.
But my original point was that the 'cranks' seem to be genuinely wishing to solve the case. I don't get that feeling with the new breed of skeptic. The objective recitation of the "facts" is insufficient to solve the case. I see a certain breed of skeptic who wraps the case evidence in a cloak of vagaries and doubt, only to better cultivate the fine art of sneaking their psychological ideologies in through the kitchen. RP |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 956
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
R.J....
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that Ms. Cornwell depends heavily on the modern apparatus of crime-solving and in my opinion, too much. So much so,that the dramatic over-the-top portrait/picture destructions obscured whatever findings,albeit they may be minor [ possibly a letter or two written by Sickert..]she has found. IMHO,that sexual serial killer concept,as much as I admit it may have been possible,doesn't wash with me....its "something else" that I can't figure out for myself yet...
The fistula-on-penis,as opposed to the backside [ Roger...everyone is making a buck with that fistula...look at my site profile..wait until it fully loads ]..the need to prove he was not in Dieppe or anywhere else...and the other little items are entirely different stories. They aren't part of the modern apparatus of which you refer to..
You may well be right,R.J. People with ideas from out of left field may be the solution...who knows?
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 891
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 3:41 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Cornwell is not at all part of the behavioral science / sexual serial killer / profiling background. She just uses terms she took from those fields for whatever crackpot explanation she comes up with to justify her character assasination of someone she decided was guilty before she did any research. The pretending to be an authority in profiling and so forth is just a marketing ploy, much like how the people trying to sell wonder drugs and related pseudoscience lift terms they don't understand from the fields of biology and physics.
Toss in the chronic need for media coverage and she's basically a Dr. Tumblety for the modern age who chose to sell bogus answers to mysteries instead of worthless cures to ailments. It's rather a shame that there are suckers out there who buy into it, but it doesn't mean that she speaks for the field in general in any way, shape or form.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 709
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
"It doesn't mean that she speaks for the field in general in any way, shape or form."
No, of course not. And, of course, Oppenheimer wouldn't lay claim to Hiroshima, either.
Cornwell sucked deeply at the Ressler/Douglas well for years,--even before she had heard of Sickert. But it's embarrassing, isn't it, when someone actually has the nerve to take the ideology seriously? All those strictly descriptivie truisms that Ressler & Douglas like to toss in--like "injecting himself" into the investigation, physical defects, (John Douglas has a special thrill for those who stutter), a taste for pornography, young white male 25-35, etc.?
Cornwell worked directly with an FBI SBU-trained profiler while she worked on her book. The man was interviewed at length for her little informercial on ABC, and if he didn't approve, he certainly didn't show it. But I can see the urge in certain quarters to scramble to distance themselves. What have the Gods wrought?
|
Jeremiah Boogle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 8:03 pm: |
|
If 75% of people talk rubbish and the other 25% spend all their time telling them it's rubbish only so that they can sneak their own rubbish ideas in while the others are busy defending themselves, then we'll all be taken by surprise when the case is solved - not least of all the solver. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 1:59 am: |
|
Hi all,
There are people who have put forth theories that they know can not be true. They study the case, and they come up with an original idea. They lay it out as if it were fact, but they know it can not be true. The people that I would call cranks, have all the ripper knowledge, and still they throw out a bogus theory.
I think Cornwell thinks Walter Sickert was Jack the ripper, so I would not call her a crank. I feel she started out trying to prove Sickert was the ripper. She should have studied the case and then chose the best Suspect. Cornwell chose to use the ABC prove me wrong aproach. A. Walter Sicker could of had a sexuall disfunction that made him impotent. Prove me wrong. B. Walter Sickert could have had secret studios in WC, and could have been in the area at the time of the murders. Prove me wrong. C. Sickert could have written ripper letters. Prove me wrong. It is hard to put forward any suspect with out speculating a little. However, her whole case seems to be built on speculation. She has proven to my satisfaction that Sickert wrote ripper letters, but conecting Sickert to ripper letters does not connect him to ripper murders.
There is nothing wrong with ideas from out of left field as long as they put in the form of a question. Could Walter Sickert have had a sexuall disfunction that made him impotent? Yes, now go prove he did. Could Walter Sickert have had secret studioes through out the eastend? Yes, now go prove he did. The Casebook is fun reading because of the fresh ideas, and the debates that follow.
I respect Patricia Cornwell. She is bright, and talented. I dont mind that she wrote a book about Jack the ripper. I dont mind that she chose Walter Sickert as her suspect. However, it is up to her to prove her case, or make a reasonable argument. It not up to her detracters to prove her wrong.
Your friend, Brad |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 895
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Yes, the person on her payroll who was also employed at the institute mostly funded by Cornwell's donations didn't directly contradict her in a TV interview. You probably shouldn't read too much into that other than a desire to stay employed.
If you find an expert in the field of criminal forensics who endorses her views without being on her payroll, let us all know. And when you have a significant percentage of them, then you can claim she represents the field.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1874
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
Tape clicks on...
Guys,
Well I for one cannot wait.....(ow) for Patricia Cornwells (slap..oof) new edition.
(muffled sounds) say it SAY IT (slap!)
*Tearfully* she really does put forward...
....(silence)
Say it you mutherf...
....she really does put forward a convincing argueme....
.....HELP, IM BEING HELD CAPTIVE BY PATSYBOPPERS !!!! THEYVE TIED ME UP AND FORCE READ ME CHAPTERS FROM BLOW FLY. THEY WONT STOP TILL WE ACCEPT THAT SHE IS THE SUPREME BEING. SHE IS GOD AND SICKERT IS..BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG.....BANG....
tape clicks off
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 13
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
1. “Cornwell is not at all part of the behavioral science / sexual serial killer / profiling background. She just uses terms she took from those fields for whatever crackpot explanation she comes up with to justify her character assasination of someone she decided was guilty before she did any research.”
>>Cornwell presents an order of ideas concerning Sickert’s candidacy as JtR. How can it be said that it matters at all in what order she herself first thought it? If she presents a series of arguments (If A, then B; If B, then C) why should she be blamed if she had thought of C before A in the chronological sense? The idea that Cornwell “decided Sickert was guilty before she did any research” is no criticism of her research, or her theory. It is a non sequitor conflating two things, (1) when she personally decided Sickert might be the Ripper and (2) the order of her logical argument that he was the Ripper. Perhaps she initially did fancy him guilty simply because John Greaves recommended him to her. But specifically how does this impact her logic that Sickert was guilty? It is by the argument she offers that we may refute her; otherwise, we would be assassinating HER character.
2. “The pretending to be an authority in profiling and so forth is just a marketing ploy, much like how the people trying to sell wonder drugs and related pseudoscience lift terms they don't understand from the fields of biology and physics.”
>>Cornwell does not fail because she dishonestly pretends to be a profiler. She fails in part because profiling itself is inadequate to catch the murderer. JtR has been professionally profiled, as David Cohen, Aaron Kosminski and others as well as Walter Sickert, and they couldn’t all have been JtR. Cornwell does not plume herself as being something she is not in terms of profiling. To say that she does is to exaggerate one’s criticism of her, lending it a false emphasis by dishonestly ascribing dishonesty to her.
3. “Toss in the chronic need for media coverage and she's basically a Dr. Tumblety for the modern age who chose to sell bogus answers to mysteries instead of worthless cures to ailments.”
>>This comment may be made of Cornwell’s logic, but not of her. In other words, she may herself be aware that her logical argument against Sickert fails to pin the blame for the Whitechapel murders on him, or she may know of some empirical information about him she doesn’t disclose that would exonerate him. But that is a far cry from saying she is a quack-something. The notion of Cornwell’s quackery unfairly attempts to hit at her too close to home; it falsely attempts to prove she’s wrong by alleging she is personally a fake-something. Tumblety was a real quack and fake; it is unfair to compare Cornwell to him in this respect.
4. “It's rather a shame that there are suckers out there who buy into it, but it doesn't mean that she speaks for the field in general in any way, shape or form.
>>This is a conflation of “suckers”—people who accept fraudulent claims, with people who take Cornwell seriously. By using this term, people who accept Cornwell’s arguments are identified with people who are duped by frauds. Thus by this language Cornwell is illicitly equated to perpetrators of frauds.
Mr. Norder is ever the master of the non sequitor, which amounts to an unproven, impertinent and inappropriate association of one concept to another that ostensibly appears unanswerable or irrefutable. He frequently attempts to lend to it the status of an objective archetype. He is especially good at aggressively mounted defenses of his non sequitors, delivered in harsh terms, making them seem to have sprung from near-axiomatic convictions.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 979
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Dear Dave...
Don't be offended,okay ?
Two or three years ago, you said that Cornwell's lesbianism influenced her methodology in arriving at the conclusions she had made at the time....
...do you still agree with those sentiments?
Thank you.
(Message edited by howard on September 15, 2005) |
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 45
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Dave,
I think Dan was a little harsh in his assessment of Cornwell. The comparison to Tumblety was unfair with respect to Cornwell's never having murdered anyone (that we know of). Cornwell is a novelist, and with that talent comes the ability to project the suspension of disbelief on the average reader. She tells a fine tale that you want to believe because she is so earnest about it. She is the grandfather who tells you those tales of his youth, embellishing as much as is necessary to make the stories good in their telling.
Aside from selling snake oil to bald men, and using false advertising to garner more money from her unwary audience, oh and setting real ripperology back a few years, what harm has she really done?
Dan's criticism was far too harsh. Cornwell is no murderer.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Judith A. Stock
Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 12:29 am: |
|
Baron.....PLEASE say you don't think Cornwell is a talented novelist! Her first few were pretty good reads, but when her heroine became the target of every serial killer in the country, relentlessly pursued and harassed, she began to fall into the trap of the heaving-bosom-book authors: change the names, but use the same plot over and over. I KNEW I was being gypped when she spent AGES on the description of a motel on an interstate highway as if that description did anything at all to further her story; it didn't..she was padding, and that's when I gave up on her ability to create a new and interesting plot. She then turned her deadlights on the Ripper, and proved me wrong by a mile or more......she DID get creative again...with the truth!
And no, I'm not published, but that doesn't mean I cannot recognise tripe when I read it.
Now I'm off to read a GOOD book.........g'night all.
Cheers,
Judy
http://www.casebook.org/2006
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 896
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 1:42 am: |
|
Baron von Zipper / Mike the Mauler -
Who said anything about Cornwell being a murderer? Hello? I compared her to Tumblety, not Jack the Ripper.
David,
You seem to make less and less sense the more you post, which is always amazing considering that at some point that shouldn't even be possible anymore.
OF COURSE coming to a conclusion before you investigate is bad. It's the old "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up." I know that that's exactly what you did with your alleged solution to the case so you feel the need to defend that, but come on, the real world doesn't put up with that nonsense.
Cornwell is not a profiler. She distorts what actual profilers say to fit her already created conclusion that Sickert was guilty. Your claim that profilers have chosen Kosminski, Cohen and Sickert is completely false, as profilers don't do that, they take about types of people, not specific people. You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the topic by making those statements.
Cornwell is just as proven of a quack as Tumblety was, just in different fields. They both have made false claims of expertise, they both sold products that didn't live up to the promises, and so forth. If you object to Cornwell being called a quack then the same arguments can be made to claim that Tumblety was not one either. Once again your entire argument comes down to you believing that one conclusion is right and one is wrong and not providing any sort of rational explanation for why that would be. You just state your own opinion as a fact and ridicule others for not agreeing with you.
And OF COURSE I link Cornwell to frauds, because she made several claims that are proven false. It's not so much that I am unfairly using words to try to falsely give that impression, as you seem to be implying, but that those of us around here for any length of time can name off a long, long list of things she got completely wrong, and a number of them being things that are not really excusable for someone claiming to write nonfiction.
I mean, come on David, you used to post lots of criticism of Cornwell yourself. The only time you were ever quoted in a Ripper journal was when you were making fun of Cornwell for the same things I am making fun of her for now. It looks like you are just so used to disagreeing with whatever I say that you'll contradict me even for saying something you already said.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 47
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Dan,
You're right. I was referring to the notion that Tumblety was somehow involved in Lincoln's murder/assassination, which wasn't true. I should have said assassin's accomplice. Sorry for the mistake.
cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 899
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Hi Mike,
Oh, OK. That's explains it then. No worries.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 2:52 am: |
|
Hello
Two or three years ago, you said that Cornwell's lesbianism influenced her methodology in arriving at the conclusions she had made at the time....
Lesbians, gaping holes in penises, cutting up pictures, obsessed with proving Walter did it..... Its getting more scary by the minute.
Mr P
|
Gordon Bennett
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
"Papers arrived yet, Fawlty?"
"Not yet, Major."
|
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 5:11 am: |
|
Hi All,
To quote Pat: "I remember hearing my father's big footsteps coming down the hall; my mother was crying, and I went into hysterics, screaming for him not leave, AND OF COURSE HE DID,". This could be an answer, explanation, for her various outpourings of the soul via the novel and...the male serial killer in our hearts and our homes?
Rosey, :-) |
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 14
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 8:37 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. ”OF COURSE coming to a conclusion before you investigate is bad. It's the old "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up." I know that that's exactly what you did with your alleged solution to the case so you feel the need to defend that, but come on, the real world doesn't put up with that nonsense.”
>>We aren’t talking about “coming to a conclusion before you investigate” in the case of Cornwell. We’re talking about a logical order of ideas that either is or isn’t adequate to determine the truth of the conclusion. I wouldn’t want to take the side of an argument that works against a logician purely on the basis that chronologically he had made up his mind concerning his conclusion before he formulated his premises. That would be tantamount to suicide.
2. “Cornwell is not a profiler. She distorts what actual profilers say to fit her already created conclusion that Sickert was guilty.”
>>As long as she doesn’t misreport what a professional profiler has said, what’s wrong with this procedure? Why does she need to be a professional profiler herself to write a book about profiling? Why is she not entitled to her opinion concerning what profilers have written?
3. “Your claim that profilers have chosen Kosminski, Cohen and Sickert is completely false, as profilers don't do that, they take about types of people, not specific people. You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the topic by making those statements.”
>>I’d like to ask our readers to step back, take a deep breath, and develop an appreciation of the pathology of this position. Read it over a few times. Mr. Norder says that my statement that the Whitechapel murderer has been professionally profiled as Kosminski, Cohen and Sickert, as I posted recently on this thread, is “completely false” because profilers “don’t talk about specific people.” Mr. Norder tells us this despite universal awareness that the FBI’s professional profiler Mr. Roy Hazelwood has profiled JtR as Aaron Kosminski, and that the FBI’s professional profiler Mr. John Douglas has profiled him as David Cohen, and that Cornwell together with her professional profiling assistants have profiled him as Walter Sickert. Mr. Hazelwood says his profile “fits Kosminski dead bang,” and Mr. Douglas says his fits “either David Cohen, or someone very much like him.” Each reader who accepts Mr. Norder as his or her Editor ought to reflect over his patently deceitful public statement. What manner of compulsion, and utter disregard for truthfulness, would be required for him to be saying something like this to us?
4. ”Cornwell is just as proven of a quack as Tumblety was, just in different fields. They both have made false claims of expertise, they both sold products that didn't live up to the promises, and so forth. If you object to Cornwell being called a quack then the same arguments can be made to claim that Tumblety was not one either. Once again your entire argument comes down to you believing that one conclusion is right and one is wrong and not providing any sort of rational explanation for why that would be. You just state your own opinion as a fact and ridicule others for not agreeing with you.”
>>This is no more than fantasies, obsessions, and scrambled thinking on the part of Mr. Norder, who apparently wants to be seen cutting some considerable dash as a debunker, and as bravely delivering a deadly blow to Cornwell on behalf of his readers. Tumblety is obviously a fraud and a quack because of what he did. He claimed he was a doctor and offered medical advice and performed medical procedures lacking an MD degree. Full stop. By definition, he’s a fraud. Correct me if I’m wrong, now, but I’m not aware that Cornwell makes any fraudulent claims about herself anywhere. She’s not falsely claiming she has some kind of professional certificate in profiling, if such a thing exists, she’s only claiming she knows about profiling because she’s read about it and worked with profilers. There is nothing inherently wrong or fraudulent about this claim. People who claim expertise based on study or experience, but lack a certificate in the area, if in fact one exists for the area in question write a great number of books and articles. Lots of non-CPAs have published in “The Journal of Accountancy,” for example, detailing specific debit and credit accounting entries and presentation techniques—they do so based on their experience in various industries with particular or unusual accounting applications, such as the hospital business or municipal government. What’s wrong with that? When Cornwell offers her opinions on the case, how can it be said she does so in quackery? How does her “product not live up to the promises” she makes? All she “promises” us is her logical argument and opinion. In fact her opinion is wrong, her argument to establish Sickert’s guilt is insufficient, and thus she slanders him. But thousands of books published today contain erroneous arguments and are wrong. This doesn’t necessarily mean their authors personally are frauds. Mr. Norder imagines expertise as a purely objective matter and limited to his narrow definition, but in large measure it is also an open, ethical one. One needs to be able to appreciate how one’s own subjectivity may be influencing what one claims about oneself, and to have a conscience. Now if someone writes a book or article about a field where a certificate is a presumed requirement, that’s different. I’d think it would be pushing hard against the definition of fraud, for example, if someone without an MD wrote a book about the human spine and offered specific remedies and techniques to deal with its injuries and diseases, because the MD certification exists and people writing about specifics in this area are presumed to have it.
5. “And OF COURSE I link Cornwell to frauds, because she made several claims that are proven false. It's not so much that I am unfairly using words to try to falsely give that impression, as you seem to be implying, but that those of us around here for any length of time can name off a long, long list of things she got completely wrong, and a number of them being things that are not really excusable for someone claiming to write nonfiction.”
>>There is no logical operation of “linking someone to frauds”--one either is a fraud, or one is not. And lots of authors are incompetent. They get things comple | | | |
