Missing Memorandum 2

[protohistorian]

I would miss Stewart. Dave

[mariab]

And I was thinking around three-ish. About as long as one can carry on without oxygen.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fishing For Compliments

Thank you, but that makes it look as if I was fishing for compliments - I wasn't.

I'm only too painfully aware, from past experience, that if I disappeared, after a day or two I'd be all but forgotten on the boards. This is simply a fact that we all have to face. And there are others who liven up the boards far more than I do. And others who provide reams more of information.

[The Good Michael]

I'm only too painfully aware, from past experience, that if I disappeared, after a day or two I'd be all but forgotten on the boards. This is simply a fact that we all have to face. And there are others who liven up the boards far more than I do. And others who provide reams more of information.

Stewart,

What you provide this site is restraint. Your knowledge makes it virtually impossible for anyone to slip too much nonsense into any of the serious threads without being called on it. Often you become disgruntled and display that feeling. I can see you (in my mind) throwing your hands in the air and saying, "I give up." In this regard you are not dissimilar to professors who expect more out of their students, including more thorough and hands on investigation, rather than concocting theories based on insufficient information. Be patient with us as we learn. Your years of study have etched many things indelibly into your head. We still misremember and make many mistakes. We also (those of us in Kazakhstan anyway) have little material on the subject to hand and rely on you to aid us. If it were I who had the knowledge, i would be honored to give it to even those who may use it foolishly. That is their choice.

Anyway, stick around.

Mike

[Scott Nelson]

If I left the boards I'd be missed for all of five minutes.

If you decide to go, please take me with you.

[Robert]

Stewart Evans? Who he?

[robhouse]

Just as a side note... it seems incredible to me that if someone were to post a libelous statement here on the message boards, that the owners of the website would be held legally responsible for it. Is this actually true, or have I misinterpreted? If so, I would assume that the libel laws should be revisited, as the internet is not so much like traditional "publishing" but instead is more or less a tool for peer-to-peer and forum-type communication. It just does not make any sense to me.

Rob H

[Fisherman]

Rob writes:

"it seems incredible to me that if someone were to post a libelous statement here on the message boards, that the owners of the website would be held legally responsible for it. Is this actually true, or have I misinterpreted?"

Of course, Rob, I may not be the one to tell you how this all works, since I am a Swede and try to abide by Swedish jurisdiction. But as a journalist, I CAN tell you that whatever is printed in a Swedish newspaper, is the editor´s legal concern, and nobody else´s. If, for example, under the Letters to the editor section, somebody should write something libelous, then he or she who wrote it will not be the one to stand trial for it - it will be the editor of the paper who does that, just as he will go to jail or be fined instead of the true writer. That´s how freedom of print works over here, and maybe it is the same with Casebook. If so, Stephen Ryder is the party who will carry the responsibility for what is said out here.
Maybe Caz - or somebody else with journalistic insights - could sort things out, when it comes to the anglo-saxon version of all of this. Anyway, that´s how it works over here.

The best,
Fisherman

[robhouse]

Hi Fisherman,

I assume you are right, but my point was that content "published" on the internet should be regarded as different from content that an editor of a print medium actively chooses to publish. Web content is by its very nature somewhat less regulated. For instance, here on casebook, the admins are only able to remove content after it has been posted, so it is entirely possible that libelous content can get out to the public and admins are unable to prevent that happening. It is in fact impossible to adequately moderate or regulate web content otherwise... the web is more like an open access tool than like a traditional publishing medium like a newspaper.

Rob

[Stewart P Evans]

Legal

Aside from any legal considerations, I am sure that the administrators would not like to see anything libellous posted on these boards - even if they were not held legally responsible. Surely people have the sense to control what they write.

[robhouse]

Aside from any legal considerations, I am sure that the administrators would not like to see anything libellous posted on these boards - even if they were not held legally responsible. Surely people have the sense to control what they write.

Agree 100%. Slander is not acceptable anywhere. It just seems to me that the person who posts that type of thing is the one who should be held accountable for it.

[Dr. John Watson]

To me, this situation has the earmarks of being a case of a serious researcher pushing hard for reasonable answers to some very good questions - and getting blocked for stepping on the wrong toes. I don't recall reading anything libelous. Threatening libel is often nothing more than a form of intimidation. In a real libel case, the so-called libelous statements must be proveably false, malicious, and published with the intent to defame and injure, and there must be a showing of actual damage. Truth is a defense, and both parties must submit to probing interrogation to establish the truth or falsity of the alleged libelous statements. Does anyone really think anyone is guilty of libel here? Is the mere threat of libel now to be used to force Casebook Forum to silence those who ask too many questions, step on too many toes, probe too deeply, or even suggest that someone is being less than forthcoming? I have tremendous respect for Steve who founded these boards, and for the senior members who have contributed so much to our knowledge of the Ripper murders. But there should be no sacred cows. Please, do not let wounded feelings spoil things. Treavor, and any other serious researcher, should be allowed to continue his quest for the truth, wherever it leads him, however intemperate his postings may be, so long as he adheres to proper and decent language. If he truly goes too far, a simple reminder from Steve should do the trick.

[Stewart P Evans]

Why?

Why do people have to get involved in debates about which they know little, or what they do know is ill-informed or incorrect?

If someone discusses a document which they do not have a copy of and they want to obtain a copy then, one would presume, they should contact the person who has that document and request a sight of it. This was not done. But aggressive posts and unfounded suggestions were posted here on a public forum. Suggestions that could damage professional reputations.

Further if that person is aggressive in his attitude and makes the suggestion that he thinks the person who has the document may have obtained it illegally, stolen it not to put too fine a point on it, then perhaps the person who owns it will feel aggrieved and not amenable to the demands made.

I really do not know what planet some people occupy. Stephen Ryder is an experienced administrator of this site and it would be nice if people credited him with enough intelligence to know what he is doing. He is very fair and would not remove posts if an unfounded complaint was made.

[Simon Wood]

Dear Dr. Watson,

Thank you for such a well-reasoned post in the midst of this debacle.

Intimidation, eh? Interesting. I hadn't considered that.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

Simon

Did you not see the post implying that the researchers in question had stolen not only the Aberconway version of the Macnaghten memorandum but also the Davies report on the marginalia?

Continual aggression and rudeness is bad enough, but surely we can all agree that accusations like that - unfounded and nonsensical though they may be - are just not acceptable.