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.
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/06/07/crime_novelist_tries_to_ward_off_internet_attacker/?page=1
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/gallery/cyber_safety/
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/05/why_envy_is_a_deadly_sin_for_a.html
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/policebeat.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-06-09-0061.html
http://www.haltabuse.org/
https://www.fastcase.com/Google/Start.aspx?C=981591eab7f8b8694191cb57b26e44de826d5d3380cb6079&D=7361647e1f8d2d479257f3ec31d682b17a7c3d2ab09c2c88
http://adistantsoil.com/blog/?p=1334
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8678634163222675862&q=%22Patricia+Cornwell%22
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2337319
http://www.nfa.tennessee.edu/
http://groups.msn.com/PatriciaCornwellFanGroup
"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.
Regards!
Sandy
"We don't like it when you tap the glass."
Showing posts with label Patricia Cornwell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patricia Cornwell. Show all posts
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Sunday, June 3, 2007
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.
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: press@wikimedia.org, abeesley@wikimedia.org, mindspillage@gmail.com, mapellegrini@comcast.net, nicholasmoreau@gmail.com, walter@wikipedia.be, timo.jyrinki@hut.fi, joonas.lyytinen@ri.fi, press-fr@wikimedia.org, press-de@wikimedia.org, ubifrieda@gmail.com, chris.nyborg@online.no, dariusz.siedlecki@wikimedia.pl, matshalldin@gmail.com, press@wikimedia.ch, jdforrester@gmail.com, wp@davidgerard.co.uk
Wikipedia founder: "Jimbo Wales": jwales@wikimedia.org, jwales@wikia.com
Wikipedia advocate: "W. Guy Finley": wgfinley@dynascope.com
Wikipedia libel help desk: helpdesk-l@wikimedia.org
Wikimedia support team: info-en-u@wikimedia.org
Wikipedia information team: info-en@wikimedia.org
Wikipedia 'problem with article' team: info-en-q@wikimedia.org
Wikipedia 'foundation': fdevouard@wikimedia.org
There you go. Have fun!
Regards!
Sandy
"We don't like it when you tap the glass."
"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: press@wikimedia.org, abeesley@wikimedia.org, mindspillage@gmail.com, mapellegrini@comcast.net, nicholasmoreau@gmail.com, walter@wikipedia.be, timo.jyrinki@hut.fi, joonas.lyytinen@ri.fi, press-fr@wikimedia.org, press-de@wikimedia.org, ubifrieda@gmail.com, chris.nyborg@online.no, dariusz.siedlecki@wikimedia.pl, matshalldin@gmail.com, press@wikimedia.ch, jdforrester@gmail.com, wp@davidgerard.co.uk
Wikipedia founder: "Jimbo Wales": jwales@wikimedia.org, jwales@wikia.com
Wikipedia advocate: "W. Guy Finley": wgfinley@dynascope.com
Wikipedia libel help desk: helpdesk-l@wikimedia.org
Wikimedia support team: info-en-u@wikimedia.org
Wikipedia information team: info-en@wikimedia.org
Wikipedia 'problem with article' team: info-en-q@wikimedia.org
Wikipedia 'foundation': fdevouard@wikimedia.org
There you go. Have fun!
Regards!
Sandy
"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 http://www.patricia-cornwell-biography.net/index.html#biostart
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 (http://www.dougiethompson.com/PatriciaDanielsCornwell_page3.htm ) 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.
Regards!
Sandy
"We don't like it when you tap the glass."
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 (http://www.dougiethompson.com/PatriciaDanielsCornwell_page3.htm ) 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.
Regards!
Sandy
"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?
Regards!
Sandy
"We don't like it when you tap the glass."
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?
Regards!
Sandy
"We don't like it when you tap the glass."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
