Saturday, June 9, 2007

The sexuality and mental illness & some other things

Quotes from Sachs' website unless mentioned differently.

Here are some things that I wanted to pay some attention to regarding Cornwell's sexuality and the things that Sachs has said about that matter.

"One reason is that Cornwell is a lesbian who totally betrays the gay and lesbian community. Not just the fact that Cornwell and the media try to hide her lesbianism - It's the fact that Cornwell is a neo-Nazi lesbian, a lesbian who supports attacks on gays as well as Jews."

I don't feel betrayed. But that must be once again just because I still happen to believe that in free countries people are allowed to vote and finance whichever party they want to.

I can easily understand why Cornwell would try to "hide" her personal life and I don't think that has anything to do with politics or all that BS. People usually want to keep their sexlife as a personal matter. Would you want your neighbour to be able to read from the newspaper all about your sexlife and other personal matters? Didn't think so.

I don't see how the media has tried to hide Cornwell's sexual orientation. After all, wasn't it the media that indeed dragged Cornwell out of the closet, outed her? Because if it wasn't... And she's hiding it... Then... Who outed Cornwell?!

"Cornwell, multi-millionaire lesbian that she is, totally betrays the gay and lesbian community. The lesbian hypocrite Cornwell pays huge money to the Bushes and other gay-bashing politicians. Even though Patricia Cornwell is one of America's most famous lesbians, Cornwell pays huge money to right-wing politicians who attack gays and who try and destroy gay and lesbian rights.."


Cornwell certainly is famous but I wouldn't call her one of America's most famous lesbians. Even though Cornwell has a lot of readers, I don't think that that amount of people would cover even a fraction of the people who have heard of Ellen Degeneres, Melissa Etheridge and of all the other American celebrity lesbians.

"Cornwell and the Bush family would like to hide all the gay and lesbian involvement that they have, as a part of the deception of America's Christian voters, who are now the last major supporters of the Bush regime."

I think it would be a very, very hard task for the Bush family to hide "all the gay and lesbian involvement that they have" since one of their family members is a lesbian. Or have I been given wrong information about Bush's daughter?

"The Bush crowd doesn't want the American people to think about the gay prostitute, the "military stud" James Guckert - Jeff Gannon, whom President Bush has invited to the White House at so many late night hours."

So, now Sachs is saying that President Bush is gay? Excuse me while I go and laugh my ass off.
I'm not saying that he couldn't be (I really don't think that he is though), I'm saying that the way Sachs is trying to suggest such a thing is hilariously silly.

"The Christian voters in the US, and their church pastors, would be very upset to know that Bush is taking million-dollar bribes from a rich lesbian to cover up for crimes and to attack the US Constitution."

You know, in the world that we live in these days, I don't think that the voters in the end would really care where the money came from as long as the person they vote for wins. And hey, do I see something a bit off here? I've read a copy of an e-mail where Sachs said that the voting machines were made by a company friendly with the Bushes so that Bush would win no matter how people voted. So... If he'd win anyway, why would anyone care do the people know that they get money from a lesbian person?
I really don't know should I laugh or feel sorry for Sachs.

"Also, Patricia Cornwell's severe mental problems, her immense personal hatreds that are so evident in her books, Cornwell's desire and lust for being a criminal and for threatening to murder people, all go back to Cornwell's mental problems with being a lesbian."

I think that these days it's very hard to find a person who doesn't suffer from depression and/or take mood stabilizers.

Now, let's get to my favourite issue: judging a writer's mental stability from what they write. I'm going to turn my stereo on now and listen to some extremely aggressive music. (-Oh God, she listenes to heavyrock, she must be a satanist!!!! Well, FYI: I'm not. Far from it actually.)

What people usually call "creative talent" and "art", Sachs calls "severe mental problems."

What if we started do judge everyone's mental stability by their writing? Should we call someone less talented in writing a "retard" or something? Should we call Stephen King, J.R.R. Tolkien, Clive Barker, Val McDermid or Karin Slaughter a psychopath because of their writing? I don't think that we should. Should we judge Quentin Tarantino's or Wes Craven's mental status by the movies that they make?

A person once said to me that she thinks that Patricia Cornwell has "serious mental problems judging by her book Black notice". I've never wanted to kick someone's teeth in worse in my life.

And I didn't feel the urge to do so just because this person was talking trash about Patricia Cornwell. I felt that urge because I'm a writer myself and thanks to this person I couldn't write in a long time without thinking "What will people think of me and my mental stability when they read this?" Lately I've stopped doing so because it was ruining my writing. Nowadays I think: to hell with my love for those who don't get it or like it. Selfish, I know, but I don't think that people should try to change the way they feel or are just because it might not please someone.

I can of course understand why someone would think that it is not "normal" to write about bodies and all kinds of horrible things that Cornwell writes about. But that is not enough to give anyone the right to call her crazy. She writes brilliantly about a matter close to her heart: solving crimes and preventing them from happening to more people.

So what exactly are these "hatreds" that Cornwell brings out in her books? Other than her hate toward crime and injustice? Let's try to judge Cornwell's personality through her characters (oh, you can call me Dr. Sigmund Fraud, hon).

I see characters in powerful positions. I see characters who hate people who abuse power. I see characters who would never abuse their power. To me this tells that Cornwell did not indentify herself with the aggressor (her father) as a child. She feels compassion for people and animals that have become victims of power abuse.

Sure, Marino is a redneck who pretty much hates everyone and everything but so what? It would be boring if all the characters were good, gorgeous and perfect in every possible way. ;)

"Patricia Cornwell is a redneck girl from the bigoted back-woods of North Carolina. Cornwell was abandoned by her own mother, and brought up under the foster supervision of Christian preacher Billy Graham, and is forever in torment about being a lesbian. Cornwell wants to be that white Southern Christian woman, like Billy Graham's wife, but Cornwell can never be that, because she is a lesbian, and this fact never stops to torment Cornwell."

So now we are judging people by from where they're from? If Cornwell were that tormented by the fact that she is a lesbian, don't you think that she'd be seeing some hypnotist and pretty much everyone who would say that they can cure homosexuality (I'm sure we all know that there are these "ex-gays" who now run some "Camp Denial" wherein they try to make themselves believe that they're not gay and then try to turn other desperate gays into straights)?

Don't you think that Cornwell would do everything in her power to "change" back to being heterosexual if being a lesbian would bother and torment her so much? If she were in a mental trap about her sexuality, why the hell would she go as far as marry someone of the same sex? Someone Jewish???

"There is a more personal side to Cornwell's education in racism and anti-semitism, and Cornwell's willingness to threaten to murder Jews - far beyond the fact that Cornwell grew up in Ku Klux Klan territory in the racist South of the US, and whatever racism she got from her parents and childhood neighbours."

Oh, now look what you've done. I can't stop laughing. I can't breathe... You're killing me! Does this count for an attempted murder?

So... Is Cornwell supposed to be the only person who has ever grown up in this "Ku Klux Klan territory in the racist South of the US"?

"In talking to Cornwell at length, you find her quickly full of venom for what seems like most everyone in her past. The main character in Patricia Cornwell's novels is troubled by intimacy, but very attached to guns, death, power, and images of violence. This is also the nature of Patricia Cornwell herself in real life."

It would be really interesting to be able to talk to Cornwell face to face and get to know her personally but thanks to Sachs, that chance is now non-existent. (Before Sachs my chances to meet Cornwell used to be about the same as winning the lottery, haha! But I'm still such an optimistic person that... What? Oh... Ok...)

The main character in King's "The Dark Tower"-series is rather troubled by intimacy, attached to guns, death, power and images of violence. Can we, based on that, say that King has same issues in his real life? Can we, based on the character of Kay Scarpetta, say that Cornwell has the same issues in her personal life?

"Cornwell, too, doesn't want readers to know how wrapped up she is with the Bush family, just like she doesn't want people to know the other facts about her life of crime and scandal."

If that's true then why the hell did Cornwell dedicate a book to Barbara Bush ("Point of origin") and is posing in pictures with the Bush-family?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Let me think... I'll be right back.
Ok, I'm back. I know now what I'm going to say.

To Patricia Cornwell and to everyone I have only one thing to say regarding this sexuality issue:

No matter what, do not deny your passion. Because denial is the only unnatural thing about being gay or lesbian.

"We don't like it when you tap the glass."

Some interesting and maybe useful links

These links can be found with Google and such but I wanted to put these here too just in case so that as many people as possible could check them out. From these you can find more accurate information regarding this "Patricia Cornwell vs Leslie Sachs"-story and more background to the story. And some useful tips of how to prevent cyber-stalking and fight it if you should become a victim. And also something if you're just interested in Cornwell in general.

"I'm trying to keep a cap on my anger, because anger makes you sick," she said, "and I don't let myself get hateful because that just poisons you. But when a schoolyard bully punches me in the nose, I'm going to have to hit back. These are insults to my character and my spirit. I am not a bigot. You don't call me a follower of Hitler. You don't say I'm about to go to prison. This is a virus; it replicates like crazy on the Internet."
- Patricia Cornwell (Boston Globe)

Have fun! Hopefully you'll find these useful and maybe entertaining.

"We don't like it when you tap the glass."

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

She won, she won! But the trouble's not over, it seems

Patricia Cornwell won the court case and Leslie R. Sachs was ordered to remove all his defaming statements from the Internet.

"Ms. Cornwell is extremely pleased because the injunction grants all of the relief that she sought and because she has a fairly passionate interest in preventing cyberstalking, and she feels she is in a position to pursue this kind of case when a lot of other folks might not be," said Cornwell's attorney Joan Lukey." (

But it seems that Cornwell-fans shouldn't be jumping up and down of joy just yet. Sachs has made it perfectly clear that he is not going to comply. Cornwell's attorney Joan A. Lukey said that if Sachs doesn't comply he could ultimately face civil as well as criminal contempt charges.

Lukey said Cornwell hopes to be able to cooperate with the search engines and Internet service providers to pull down the libelous statements online or provide a hyperlink to the court order so a reader of Sachs' Web sites can review what a federal court has already found in connection with his postings.

Sachs doesn't really seem to care about charges. In his web-site there is already a "link-to-be" titled:

" (1) Gangster US judges issue new US fake Nazi-style "court orders", yet again trying to ban the truth about the crimes of Patricia Cornwell and the Bush regime and judges - New fake "court orders" by the same racist, Jew-hating judges who joined Cornwell in threatening to murder Dr Sachs inside the US - Dr Les Sachs, safe in Europe, tells Patricia Cornwell and corrupt US judges to take their newest fake "court orders" and shove them up their neo-Nazi buttocks"

And there we go with the butts again.

Hopefully this whole thing will be done and over with as soon as possible and we could finally be able to say: "And that's the end of that chapter." This is actually getting quite boring... (No offence!)

"We don't like it when you tap the glass."

Sunday, June 3, 2007

The so-called "Extortion letters" and Cornwell comitting "felony perjury"

Quotes from Dr Sachs' web-site at

Here's what the "Patricia Cornwell's Jew-baiting extortion letters" have in them:

"Leslie Raymond Sachs, PO Box 9575, Richmond VA 23228-0575
Re: Defamatory statements made respecting Patricia Cornwell
Dear Mr. Sachs,

As you know from our letter January 24 (a copy which is enclosed), this firm represents Patricia Cornwell.

We now have received further evidence that you are willfully defaming Ms. Cornwell by alleging that she has plagiarized a book written by you entitled The Virginia ghost murders. As stated in our letter of January 24, these allegations are completely untrue and vigorously denied by Ms. Cornwell.

In particular, we have become aware of a letter written by you to Mr. David Wan, president of The Penguin Group, dated January 19, 2000 in which you restate these allegations. Moreover your correspondence with Esther Newberg, Ms. Cornwell's agent at International Creative Management, dated January 24, 2000, contains copies of a proposed jacket design and interior pages of your book which imply such plagiarism.

Demand is once again made that you cease and desist from defaming Ms. Cornwell. Demand is further made that you send a letter to Mr. Wan withdrawing your false and defamatory statements and that you withdraw and destroy all copies of the book and advertising relating to your book that imply such illicit copying occured.

Unless we receive your written confirmation that you will comply with these demands no later than February 10, 2000, we shall take such steps which we deem appropiate to protect Ms. Cornwell's rights. "

Now, let's see. I don't know what in this letter exactly makes it a "Jew-baiting" letter. All that I see is lawyers asking Sachs to stop. Yes, they did ask him to destroy the copies of his book. But they asked him to destroy only the copies which implied that Cornwell has plagiarized his book. Not the ones that didn't say anything about Cornwell. Read carefully and think for yourself.

Next up, the "Felony perjury" found at

"A. No. In fact, the earliest anybody saw of it would have been probably back in January when my agent maybe read the first 70 single-spaced pages because that's really -- Up untill Christmas, that's about all I really had.
It was very slow for me to figure out exactly what I was doing in that book, but the draft that was just turned in within the last three or four weeks was the first complete draft that anybody has ever seen. There were no earlier drafts. I'm just finishing it.

Q. Have you made any revisions to the book because of anything Mr. Sachs has done?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Have you threatened in any way to destroy Mr. Sachs' books?
A. No.
Q. Does it hurt your reputation to be refered to as a book-burning Nazi?
A. There isn't much worse you can say."

Where exactly did Patricia Cornwell threaten to destroy Sachs' books? In the "Jew-baiting extortion letter"? Think again. No one threatened to destroy the book. No one. Especially not Patricia Cornwell. Dr Sachs was asked to destroy the copies of his book which were defaming. No one said anything like "If you don't destroy them, we'll come and do that for you." So if these are Sachs' "crystal clear evidence", I'd think twise before believing in him.

Then there's the "Banning Sachs' freedom of speech." I don't feel like writing down the whole thing, so I'll just put here the important stuff. Check the complete papers from

The court orders says pretty much this:
Sachs is not allowed to place stickers with Patricia D. Cornwell's name on it onto his book
Sachs is not allowed to use Patricia D. Cornwell's name in advertising his book.
Sachs should call up all the booksellers that have his book and tell them to take the "Cornwell-sticker" off of his book.
Sachs should stop mentioning Patricia Cornwell in his web-site.
Sachs should not use Cornwell's name in any way.
No damages, each party pays for it's own fees and costs
Case dismissed
It is so ordered.

So why didn't he just stop? It would have been a lot easier for everyone if he just stopped talking about Patricia Cornwell and did something else. If he is such an expert on American corruption as he says, he should've known by then that he shouldn't bother. Actually, one doesn't even have to be an expert on anything to know that legally Sachs stands no chance and that is because plotlines are NOT copyrighted. If they were, there wouldn't be half as many TV-shows, movies and books out there. But no.

He wants to pretend to be a hero, a "political refugee". It takes a lot more than a web-site and a couple of letters to some people to change the world. My blog, Sachs' blog, it makes no difference. Of course some people might express their interest and say nice things or then nasty things but that's not going to change the world. To truly change the world, you'd have to be able to "punch God in the face" so to speak. And I don't think that that can be done by posting annoying, paranoid and defaming stuff about some writer on the Internet.

All Sachs has done now is this:
1. He has ruined the reputation of a good person and a good writer. Some bookstore owners have refused to sell Cornwell's books because they believe that what Sachs is telling about Cornwell is true. I know Cornwell won't starve to death if her book sales go down a little bit but still. This can also reflect to the fans who have gotten used to buying their books from a certain bookstore and now the owner suddenly says that s/he ain't going to sell them anymore.

2. He has caused Cornwell stress and probably made her feel bad and now she's unable to fully focus on her work which probably will reflect to the quality of her writing.

3. Sachs "took" Cornwell away from her fans. Cornwell is afraid to attend book-signings and stuff because someone believing in Sachs might show up with a weapon. Thanks to Sachs many people are going to loose a chance to meet their favorite author. But what does Sachs care. In his mind it's probably just fun if someone looking up to Cornwell feels sad or dissapointed.


Cornwell and Wikipedia

Quotes once again taken from Sachs' web-site unless otherwise mentioned. You should know the address by now. If you don't, check out the previous posts.

"Via this one overwhelmingly dominant website, the thousands of nameless agents at CIA and NSA headquarters, can now deceive and defraud millions of US citizens and much of the rest of the world as well. These agents can smear and attack those who challenge the government; they can easily launch lies and propaganda on this powerful web forum that can falsify anything and undermine almost anyone."

I'd imagine that the CIA agents and all the rest have better things to do.

"To give you a quick proof of how fake Wikipedia is, let's consider the case of major Bush donor and weird right-wing celebrity author Patricia Cornwell. Cornwell is an old pal of the Bushes since the early 1980s."

Oh, yes. Let's indeed do that. Would be a shame if Sachs wouldn't be able to drag Cornwell into every post possible.

"Take a look on the web for the well-documented "Patricia Cornwell Biography: Crime, Bribery, Scandal and Mental Illness". Here you find a pretty juicy set of legal cases and scandals collected from court documents and print media like Esquire and Vanity Fair. Then take a look at the totally fake biography of Bush's friend Cornwell on Wikipedia "

Pretty juicy? It's not. It would be juicy if it were true. Here I see just Sachs' word against Cornwell's. He says he has proof and has indeed put some of those court documents online (I'll get back to those later), but I don't see anything in those papers that would prove anything. Even in those papers there's just Sachs' word against Cornwell's.

"Here, most of the facts of Cornwell's fascinating life are not even mentioned, and a good chunk of the Wikipedia entry makes a slanderous attack on the author who wrote Cornwell's real biography above. At the time of this writing, the Wikipedia attack on the biographer uses a fake "internet source" for a phony story about a court case, not telling you that this deceptive Wikipedia "source article" is from Cornwell's own publisher who is a party in the legal case being described."

What's not mentioned? The boob job? The nose job? The FBI-scandals? The car crash? Why would Wikipedia have to put these things online, Sachs is doing it for them. Now, when I last checked the car crash was in Wikipedia and a lot of this "fascinating life" of Cornwell's too. The things about Cornwell's father were on Wikipedia. The fact that Cornwell testified against a security guard as a child was in Wikipedia. How Cornwell's mother suffered from depression and left the children to the Graham family is on the Wikipedia. Cornwell's anorexia, bipolar disorder and her homosexual relationship with another woman is in Wikipedia. I mean, what more do you need to know?

Just in case someone doesn't feel like checking up Wikipedia, here's what it says in Wikipedia about Sachs:

"Leslie Sachs, author of The Virginia Ghost Murders (1998), claimed there were similarities between his novel and Cornwell's The Last Precinct. In 2000, he sent letters to Cornwell's publisher, started a Web page and placed stickers on copies of his novel alleging that Cornwell was committing plagiarism. Cornwell successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against Sachs. The court ruled that his claims were baseless, and he ordered to stop placing the stickers on his book. The court also shut his web site down for false advertising and required booksellers to remove the stickers that were already on copies of The Virginia Ghost Murders.
Sachs left the country so that he could escape the injunction. He continues to charge that Cornwell plagiarized his work and used her influence to subvert justice. Cornwell has recently taken Sachs to court over cyberstalking and libel"

I don't know about you but to me that doesn't seem to be an "attack" against Sachs. That's what happened, is it not?

"Despite all the lies and fraud on Wikipedia, this bogus online "encyclopedia" is today the most dominant reference source in the English speaking world. It is far more influential than many people realize or imagine, thanks to the power of the internet."

Maybe the reason Wikipedia is so popular is the fact that it's free and it's accurate. And easy to use. Thanks to the power ot the Internet, people like Sachs can try to destroy someone's reputation. And that's a damn shame.

"Here's another quick way to give you an idea what is going on. Think of some country you know very little about. Punch up the name on an internet search engine. Two things will tend to pop up quite high on the list: "Wikipedia" and the "CIA Fact Book". Hmm. Are you starting to feel the connections here?"

Well, DUHH. Even the Wikipedia has to get it's answers from somewhere.

"In this particular case, someone who acts like a CIA-backed operative is one "W. Guy Finley", who operates on Wikipedia as one of the central "Wikipedia advocates" - the people who are supposed to help you, when someone else is publishing false things about you. They are the sort of "Wikipedia lawyers" in that strange little world, and they turn out to be as nasty, devious and worthless as lawyers in the US usually are, and just like real lawyers, the "Wikipedia advocates" kiss up to the rich and the powerful."

What did Sachs exactly try to have the Wikipedia guys to change then? See above what Wikipedia says about Sachs and then see what he says about himself and about all this in his web-site. Now, what exactly would Wikipedia have to change? All that's in there is true. Sachs charged Cornwell, Cornwell sued him, he lost and started this Internet-stalking and now Cornwell has sued him again. And all this is in the Wikipedia.

"So the media don't talk about how Cornwell and her lesbian lover Irene Shulgin were frolicking at Kennebunkport with the current President Bush, and how Cornwell gave the Bush family a $1 million gift then, handing the money to the President's mother, Barbara Bush (the wife of the previous President Bush). The media know that story, they have a witness, but they don't tell. That's because the government wants to deceive all those starry-eyed Christian voters, who might not have thought so well of Bush or Cornwell, thinking about that lesbian romping and the money flowing, all on the Bush family estate."

So, who's the witness? Is it you, Dr Sachs? Because you often say that you've got proof and witnesses but we never see any proof or hear any of these witnesses. It's funny how you have so much information and witnesses but no one is willing to talk. Where do you get all your information from? Do you follow Cornwell around? Maybe you're not "just" a cyber-stalker after all...

We have to bear in mind that reporters will do almost anything for a scoop. Especially when it's something as "juicy" as this. If the reporters would have to keep their mouth shut about Bush, why are there so many negative articles about Bush in the newspapers and news? Cornwell can easily give her money to wherever or to whoever she wants to and she can do it as "Anonymous". So why bother deceiving anyone when you can handle the whole thing by not revealing your name? And what does this have to do with Wikipedia? Don't ask me.

"The control is very effective. Most of the stories you would want to hear, do not make it onto CNN. You need to dig, and dig deep, on the internet, to really know what is happening in the world."

And since when has the Internet become a reliable source or information? Didn't Sachs just say something like "thanks to the power of the Internet, everyone can write whatever they want to and thus the internet is not reliable."? Or did I completely missunderstand that?

"The cover-up of America's phony legal system, is one of the most central Big Lies about the US. That cover-up is a priority for US intelligence agencies, hence the CIA interest in covering up for Bush's friend Cornwell."

I still think that the CIA has better things to do than to babysit Cornwell.

"And to cover up for the legal system, they need to cover up for Bush's friend Patricia Cornwell. As part of the 2000 election campaign for Bush, Cornwell bought a fake court proceeding with a US federal judge to ban a writer's freedom of speech. This "show trial" was so fake it is almost hilarious, with the proof of federal crime lying around in broad daylight."

If Cornwell and her friends are such mastermind criminals that they can silence everyone and everything, why would they leave "proof of federal crime lying around in broad daylight"?

"You can change the false material they have written about you, but the Wikipedia goons just change it back, and quickly start charging you with "vandalizing" Wikipedia."

What false have the Wikipedia staff written about Sachs? Nothing. And if he's trying to write his paranoid blah-blah to the Wikipedia on a regular basis he is indeed vandalizing Wikipedia.

"It's very, very hard to contact Wikipedia, or even to figure out who to contact or how to contact them. The CIA likes things that way. Attempts were made to try to talk to Wikipedia for this article, but of course the Wikipedia people didn't really want to chat about these things - that's not how CIA guys like to play it."

It's very hard to contact my mobile phone operator. It's very hard to contact the local pizzeria. It's very hard to contact the taxi service (especially when you're walking in the rain and you're freezing). You know, it's hard to contact a lot of places. But I don't try to blame that on the CIA.

Well, what do you know! Here they are. Fresh from Sachs' own blog. See, it wasn't that hard after all. Even he could do it. You should be able to do it as well.

Wikipedia press phone number, 'Danny', no last name: +1 727 231 0101

Wikipedia press e-mail addresses:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Wikipedia founder: "Jimbo Wales":,
Wikipedia advocate: "W. Guy Finley":
Wikipedia libel help desk:
Wikimedia support team:
Wikipedia information team:
Wikipedia 'problem with article' team:
Wikipedia 'foundation':

There you go. Have fun!

"We don't like it when you tap the glass."

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Patricia Cornwell, the FBI agents and Cornwell "stealing" autopsy reports

Quotes taken from Sachs' web-site

All right, let's roll once again!

"Patricia Cornwell's first well-known lesbian affair was with FBI agent Marguerite or 'Margo' Bennett, who was teaching communications at Quantico. Margo Bennett was married to Eugene Bennett, another FBI agent, and had two children. Patricia Cornwell has admitted in interviews that she has given money and gifts and done favours for these two FBI agents - which is important as a part of Cornwell's broader history of bribing government officials, and as a part of Cornwell's influence at the FBI regarding the cover-up of her own crimes."

Patricia Cornwell gives money to a lot of people and to a lot of organisations. It's called 'charity', not 'bribery.'

"Patricia Cornwell was named in the court papers as the person whose adulterous lesbian affair with Margo, was the cause of the destruction of their marriage, and also of pushing Margo's husband Eugene into a murderous rage. Cornwell had encouraged Margo Bennett to end her marriage, and also encouraged Margo to snitch out her husband to the FBI on vengeful claims of expense-padding, claims which led to the termination of not only the FBI careers of her husband Eugene, but also Margo herself, and this scandal led to the first of Eugene Bennett's prison sentences."

Well, if you steal $17 000 from the FBI and try to shoot someone, you'll end up in jail. That should be pretty obvious. You don't need Cornwell nor a "scandal" to end up in jail if you do something like that. Of course some people pinned this all on Cornwell. But as far as I know, Cornwell hadn't met with Margo in years and wasn't even in town when the shootout took place.

If you know better, do correct me. I pretty much go by the things that Cornwell has said (BBC radio interview at Radio 4 - Front Row 06/05/2002) and by what I think about these things.

Here's what Douglas Thompson ( ) says:

"His [Eugene Bennett's] wife told the FBI that he had stolen $17,000 from them. He admitted falsifying expenses and obstructing justice and spent a year in jail. All along he had ranted to anyone who would listen that his daughters, aged seven and nine, were going to be 'brought up by lesbians'."

Isn't it obvious why Eugene Bennett makes this comment about his daughters possibly being brought up by lesbians? He wanted to get the custody of these children and possibly avoid prison. How sane is he supposed to be then? If someone ruined his and Margo's FBI-careers, it was Eugene Bennett himself.

Eugene Bennett was planning to kill Cornwell and at least two other people and when Cornwell wasn't in town (she had moved) Bennett took a priest hostage, threatened his family and made him call Margo and ask her to come there. Would the Bennett children be better off with their crazy father than a lesbian couple? I don't think so.

"Another major scandal with an FBI agent, involved Cornwell's relationship with famous FBI behavioural scientist Bob Ressler. Ressler is the veteran profiler of numerous famous murderers, including killers Charles Manson, the Son of Sam and John Wayne Gacy, and Robert Kennedy's killer Sirhan. Cornwell was introduced to Ressler in 1990, with the idea that Cornwell would help develop a book on Ressler's life and work. After a number of meetings, it was clear the relationship between them was sour. Disliking each other, they did not pursue the book project further."

Cornwell and Ressler didn't get along, that's true. But the reason Cornwell and Ressler didn't pursue the book project was the fact that Ressler was trying to take credit for cases he hadn't even worked on (like Ted Bundy) and Cornwell disliked that and thus she left the project.

"That first crime novel solidified the pattern of Cornwell's not being fully original in her writing. 'Postmortem' was Cornwell's fictional re-hash of the South Side Strangler murders that bedevilled Richmond in the late 1980s. . . . It seems as well that Cornwell's book inspired another murder in Sarasota, Florida, where police felt the murder was a copycat of Cornwell's gruesome book."

Right, as if there'd be something strange about the fact that a writer uses real life events in his/her book. If you search long enough you'll find tons of mystery- and crime novels based on something real.

Copycat killers could and can just as easily get their ideas from movies or other books (like something by Val McDermid or Karin Slaughter for example?). Maybe someone indeed did copycat Cornwell's books but I don't think it's fair to try and blame that on Cornwell. It's not her fault that some crazy person starts killing people. And if Cornwell 'copied' the events of real murders to her book, isn't it more likely possible that the copycat was copying the real murderer, not the one Cornwell made up for her book?

" 'Body of Evidence' has a mentally disturbed character named Al Hunt who commits suicide. Al Hunt, however, is a real person. Al Hunt is a Wall Street Journal employee who had met Cornwell briefly, and refused to give her a job."

Pick up a phonebook. See how many people named 'Al Hunt' you can find. Or how many people have the same name as you do. While you're at it, see how many "John Smith's" you can find. :)

As far as I know, writer's are pretty much allowed to use whatever names they want to. And that's how it should be. It's hard to think a name for a character that no actual person could possibly have. Well, at least if you're not writing fantasy and name your characters 'Bloombasticouisus' or something like that.

"Patricia Cornwell committed one of her gravest crimes while kibitzing there with the Virginia coroners. She stole the private autopsy reports of the murdered children of two families, the victims in the well known New Kent Parkway rest stop murders of October 1989. Patricia Cornwell copied, essentially verbatim, the secret autopsy reports on victims Annamaria Phelps and Daniel Lauer, ruthlessly exploiting this tragedy to create Cornwell's third book, 'All That Remains', in 1992."

Well, the stuff about autopsies in Cornwell's books could easily be from any autopsy ever done. Nowadays privacy about autopsies doesn't seem to be such a big deal - has anyone seen the tv-show called 'Autopsy'? They show and talk about real things.

If Cornwell can so easily bribe her way in so that she's allowed to do whatever she wants in the morgue then why would she bother to steal anything? Cornwell knows the people there, I don't think that she would have to bribe or steal anything to get research-help from her friends.

And if Patricia Cornwell hadn't written a book that in some ways seems similar to these real murders, someone else would have. So quit milking it, Sachs.

Just in case Patricia Cornwell wouldn't happen to have anything better to do than to Google her own name and she happens to find this blog: If you decide to send "thugs" to paint swastikas onto my house, could you please tell them to paint the wall in the back? That wall could really do with some paint. Thank you, come again! ;D

But seriously: Every author uses experiences from real life - from their own life or from stories they've heard/read - in their books in some way. If there's something that makes a writer really happy or sad or angry, there's a chance that the writer will write about that thing in some form. Because that's where books come from - from the writer's heart, mind and soul.

"We don't like it when you tap the glass."

Patricia Cornwell, Jodie Foster and Demi Moore

Once again the quotes are taken from Dr Les Sachs' web-site unless mentioned otherwise.

This is one of my favourites. Sachs tells us that Patricia Cornwell has been stalking Jodie Foster and getting into fights with Demi Moore and all sorts of funny things (at least I laughed my butt off while reading these hilarious writing of dr Sachs').

"One of the actresses who briefly considered a role as Cornwell's main fictional character was Demi Moore. Cornwell later bragged about being in a hot tub with Demi and smoking cigars."

First of all, I think that Demi Moore would have been a terrible choice to play Scarpetta. I mean she's a great actress and all but no, no way she should've been cast as Scarpetta.

I read that Cornwell took Moore to the morgue, to Quantico and to dinner. Yeah, they were smokin' cigars in a hot tub but so what? Heck, if I were smoking cigars with Demi Moore in a hot tub I'd brag about it too! I'd go knock on every door in my neighbourhood, I'd put my hands on my hips and I'd say:
"- Nah-nah, I was in a hot tub with Demi Moore!"
So let Cornwell brag about it if she wants to.

"The most bizarre episode from Cornwell's California jaunts, was her emotional crush upon actress Jodie Foster, who was also considered as a potential lead actress in a Cornwell movie script. Cornwell had a crush on Foster, and pursued her obsessively in a weird, stalking way that must have been very disturbing to Foster. This is described in a January 1997 Esquire article by Jeanette Wells, 'Jodie, Jodie, Jodie'."

Jodie Foster as Scarpetta would-have-been-so-obvious! Next!

Now, let me see. The Esquire magazine... Oh, yes! This indeed seems to be a magazine with reliable information in it (that was sarcasm, just in case someone didn't get it). What next, "Aliens ate my spaghetti"?

Cornwell wasn't "pursuing Foster", she was trying to talk her into playing Scarpetta. The fact that Cornwell sits drinking coffee or having dinner at the same restaurant that Foster walks into doesn't mean that Cornwell was stalking her.

But, just for fun, let's assume for a moment that Cornwell was stalking Foster. Ok, what's so weird about that? I bet that Foster has a lot of stalkers. Men, women, whatever. Many celebrities have stalkers. Sachs just so happened to forget to mention that.

"Cornwell and Jodie Foster met briefly, but the meeting did not go well. Foster seems to have found Cornwell somewhat disgusting, and did not want to pursue the project further."

Was Sachs there? How is he supposed to know how the meeting went or what Foster thought of Cornwell? Can Sachs read people's minds? And what does Foster have to say about this? Has anyone asked her? If someone knows, let me know.

"Just like with the FBI agents, Cornwell began offering sizeable bribes and gifts with the idea that Brafstein would induce Jodie to meet Cornwell again and then they could start a relationship."

Like I said before, Cornwell was probably just trying to talk Foster into playing Scarpetta. Foster said "no" and Cornwell tried again, maybe offered a better deal to Foster or something. Seriously, I don't understand how someone could possibly believe a word of Sachs' writings. Well, too bad for those who do. They'll be fooled. Big time.

"As the 1990's came to a close, her Hollywood foray a failure, Cornwell went back to identifying Virginia as her main home, though she travelled among several places and in fact was at home nowhere. She deepened the political and campaign contributions that made her more of a political force with Republicans and especially in Virginia, befriending Virginia's Governor of 1997-2001, Jim Gilmore. Gilmore, right-wing friend of George Bush, ended up renting Cornwell's Virginia mansion and sleeping in the same bedroom where Cornwell had trysted with lesbian lovers."

Read carefully now. If you read the last sentence too fast you'll get the idea that Cornwell and her "lesbian lovers" are sleeping in the same bed with Gilmore. Ok?
Now, that you've read it slowly and carefully: If you rent someone's house, you're bound to end up sleeping in the same bedroom that the previous tenant or owner has slept.

Of course I'm sure that there were/are a lot of bedrooms in Cornwell's houses but I'm pretty sure I'd pick the same one Cornwell had used. Not because of the fact that it would be the same one where "Cornwell had trysted with her lesbian lovers" but because I'm sure it would have the nicest view and so on. And if it didn't, I'd change.

You know, like Goldie-what's-her-name, the little girl in the fairy tale. '-This one's too hard, this one's too soft... Hey, this is perfect!'

By the way, I'm sure that the three bears ate that little Goldie-what's-her-name who broke into their house, ate their food and then just took a nap in their bed (how rude is that?!). I don't blame the three bears. I would've eaten her too.

"We don't like it when you tap the glass."

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Patricia Cornwell vs Leslie Sachs

I'm sure everyone has already heard of this. But just in case someone hasn't, here's the story in few words: Dr. Leslie Sachs calls in his web-site author Patricia Cornwell a "Jew-hating neo-Nazi" and a lot of other things.

Here's what I think about these things. Bear in mind that these are just my thoughts but I think there's some sense in them. And forgive me for my bad english and spelling-mistakes, please.

First of all: Sachs calls himself "an expert on American corruption." I would love to know what excactly makes him an "expert on American corruption." As far as I know, he is just a history professor.

Sachs calls Patricia Cornwell a "neo-Nazi" who wants to become "a lesbian Adolf Hitler". When Cornwell's lawyer Joan A. Lukey (she's a very nice lady, by the way) asked Cornwell about her attitude toward the Jewish community, Cornwell pointed out that she has a lot of Jewish friends and agents and that she is married to a Jewish person.

I can't really say why exactly Sachs makes such a big deal out of Patricia Cornwell's sexuality. Probably because he wants to be able to say that Cornwell is betraying the gay community by financing the republicans and the Bush party and that Cornwell's lesbianism is being hidden by the press because Bush and friends don't want people to know that one of their family friends is a lesbian.

If that is true, then why on Earth did Cornwell say in an interview that she is in "a stable, long-term relationship" and when the interviewer asked her if her lover is a woman, Cornwell replied: "Yes. So to all these people who think I'm all screwed up about relationships: I'm in one." This kind of makes me think that Sachs is barking up the wrong Bush...

If memory serves me right the article was written by Andrew Billen. But I may be wrong. There was a link to this article in Wikipedia.

And so what if Cornwell is a lesbian who gives money to the conservative party? I thought that in free countries people are allowed to finance and vote for whichever party they want to no matter what their sexual orientation may be.

Then the boob job.
Sachs mentions that Cornwell has had plastic surgery on her nose and on her breasts. It's hard for me to understand why Sachs exactly mentions these things but I suppose it is because he wants to make Cornwell seem unperfect in every possible way.

I don't know and I don't care wheter or not Patricia Cornwell has had plastic surgery on her breasts and/or on her nose. Believe it or not, I do have better things to do than to stare at Cornwell's breasts and nose.
But so what if Cornwell has had some work done on her face? Who cares? Many people, celebrities and non-celebrities, go under the knife. If you're going to tell me that Cornwell is the only one who has had a boob job or a nose job then why don't you just shave my legs and call me a Dolly Parton!

In his book "True crimes of Patricia Cornwell" (not published yet but I did have the questionable "pleasure" to read an early draft of it sent to me by a friend who got it from Sachs through e-mail), Sachs spends quite a lot of time telling us how unattractive and male-like Cornwell is in real life, how she has a "face of an addict or a long-time drunk", how she is "high as a kite" and so on, and so on.

What Sachs failes to mention is the fact that the day he met Cornwell, Cornwell had most likely had trouble sleeping and that she had to get up that day at 4.00 AM. I don't think that there are too many people who manage to look attractive after suffering from stress, sleepless nights and busy days. And as we all know, sleeplesness also can easily make one appear to be "high" or irrational.

Sachs mentioned that he has a "drop of Jewish blood" in his veins. It seems to me that he thinks that because of that he can say that Cornwell is a Jew-hater because she is trying to stop Sachs from keeping up his offending web-site.

If someone calls you a "money whore" and a "neo-Nazi" and a lot of other extremely nasty things, wouldn't you take some actions, like Cornwell did, to stop that? Like he said himself, Sachs only has a "drop of Jewish" blood in him, so one really can't describe Cornwell's activities to try and shut Sachs' cyberstalking-web-site down as an attack against the Jewish community.

I'm pretty sure that Cornwell (and anyone else who would become a victim of this type of stalking!) would sue anyone putting that kind of stuff on the Internet no matter what their religious background may be.

This "Cornwell hates Jews"- hoax just proves how desperate Sachs is in his tries to blacken Cornwell's reputation.

Sachs also makes a big deal about the fact that Cornwell has said in some interview that she can "literally get away with murder" if she wants to. I believe that this statement has been taken completely out of it's original context. If you think about it, you'll realize that every single crime scene investigator could get away with murder if they wanted to because they know what to do and what not to do in a crime scene.

As we all know, Cornwell has spent a lot of time recearching crime scene investigation and police work. If you hang around with police and CSI-members and study their work as long as Cornwell has studied you can easily say that you can get away with murder.

Cornwell stalking people? Yeah, right.
Sachs has said that he has been contacted by women who say that they have been stalked and harassed by Patricia Cornwell. First of all I have to believe that Cornwell is a bit too busy to be stalking people.

I would be interested in hearing what these women actually have to say (if these women even exist outside Sachs' head). It would also be interesting to know that how are we supposed to know that these women are telling the truth? What if they just saw Sachs' web-site and thought it would be fun to make fun of him?

And then: How are we supposed to know that Sachs didn't "seduce" these women into telling lies for him by promising them money and fame (kind of like he did when he suggested to AP reporter Zinie Chen Sampson that if she takes his side on this story -BAM- she'll win a Pulitzer and will never have to work again) after this is all over?

The obvious
I do think it is extremely obvious why Sachs is doing this. First of all he is jealous. Almost next door to him lived a woman, who had suddenly became famous and rich, while Sachs himself was stuck in writing books about how to buy used cars cheap.

Sachs keeps on saying how his book, "The Virginia ghost murders" was praised by the publishers and readers and reviewers. If this is true, then why did he have to put up his own publishing company to get his book published? And how many people in the end actually have read his book, which Sue Feder's reviewer called "sleazy and dull"?

I think that Sachs' ultimate goal was (and still is) to get publicity for his book. Now many people might think: "Hmm, I'd like to read Sachs' book and compare it to Cornwell's "The Last precinct" and see for myself." Gee, I'm sure he never meant for that to happen!

Sachs calls himself a "gentle" man. Yeah, right. He did sound extremely "gentle" and reasonable when he told Cornwell's lawyers (as they had sent him an e-mail informing him that Patricia Cornwell has filed a lawsuit against him) to "take their Nazi-threats and shove them up their asses" and when he said that the thing that really "makes Cornwell all hot and wet between the legs" is jailing and threatening other people. Yes, yes, these certainly seem like the writings of a "gentle", reasonable, stable and a nice man that Sachs says that he is.

Is Sachs crazy? A little bit. But above all, he is extremely jealous, bitter and paranoid. Tinfoil, anyone?

"We don't like it when you tap the glass."