In the name of honesty...

[Monty]

Point 1, I wholeheartedly agree with you. However some really do not care what opinion me, you or AP has of them.

Point 2. Absolutely however you misunderstand. What I am saying is that past experiences may effect how people present their info in the future.

Point 3. Usually?

So the presentation is far more important than the information itself?

Theres a hell of a lot more to consider than mere presentation.

Cheers
Monty

[Ally]

No I would say that in academia presentation is half the battle. Two people can present roughly the same information, but the way you present it DOES matter. If one person stands there and drones on and on in a flat monotone, barely raising their voice, and another has a dynamic presentation that involves the audience ...which do you think is going to be better received?

Presentation is important. If you turn your audience off before you even get to the meat of the material, you've lost. Flat out lost. Look at all the hoopla over that guy who published the book with MJK's photo on the cover. People were saying they wouldn't even buy the book....Presentation DOES matter in how someone receives what you have to say, absolutely.

[Monty]

Thats a fair point Ally.

I guess Im not influenced in such away any more, or at least try not to be.

And thats what presentation partly is no? Influencing.

Monty

[Cap'n Jack]

I'd go along with Ally on this, the presentation of these folks is so unprofessional that one cannot take them seriously. They turn something quite positive into a major farce, just because their ego is running the show.
But I think it deeper than that, in that the general view appears to be that new information will help to solve the case, in that some obscure photo or ear clip of weird information is going to solve this case... well I reckon that is bullshit, as the information that will solve this case is already out there, and it just needs someone without a massive ego, and the right presentation to stick the bill board on the wall.

[Monty]

I agree AP however would you let poor presentation cloud your opinion of the information itself?

Monty

[Cap'n Jack]

No, Monty, I would'nt go as far as that, but it is plainly irritating when these chaps come along with a thunder clap of new info that is going to solve the case, and then all we get is a tiny fart and a bad smell left in the corridors of confusion.

[The Good Michael]

This thread reminds me of the loony Kendall woman who knows, through her long-dead ancestor John McCarthy, the person who killed Kelly. That stuff pisses me off too. "I've got a secret and I'm not telling." Just give what you've got, come up with a bit of evidence, and I'll still buy the book. I promise. Give me what seems like a lie, and don't come through with anything, and you get nothing but irritated people who don't believe that boy saw any wolves.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Mike,
I must say, I would hardly call Fiona ''Loony', but I agree that its is frustrating for all of us, just to receive the 'Dangling carrot' post or two , which in the case of the above mentioned resulted in just that.
I for one urged her to continue, but alas to no avail, although she still communicated with Coral.
Any source she may, or may not have come across, would only be judged as pure oral history, but she presented some wonderful snippits to us, before rudeness reared its ugly head, and she retreated into silence, which I for one felt was a great pity. to have had amongst us surely would have been a asset, being the great grandaughter of kellys landlord [proven]
Anyway a shame.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

I must say, I would hardly call Fiona ''Loony',

I have no fear of calling someone loony when they pull that kind of crap. Face it, there are a lot of loonies out there who just want to peddle BS and then begin to believe what they peddle. The benefit of the doubt is given to those who produce something and don't act like Bilbo Baggins who has a secret something in his 'nasty little pocketesses'.

The best to you Richard

Mike

[Ally]

I agree AP however would you let poor presentation cloud your opinion of the information itself?

Monty

But of course, if the people aren't forthcoming with the info after dropping the "I know something you don't know", at what point does a person's credibility impact their product? Would you buy secret stock from Madoff even if he swore it was really really genuine?

If the product isn't out there for an open evaluation by all, then until it is, the person's presentation of the product is all we have to go on. And if they are saying "Yes it's definite, believe me, I have proof, and No you can't see it for yourself" then yes, the presentation is going to affect my opinion of the information itself. Until I can see it and judge it for myself, then personal presentation DOES matter.

Once the material is actually out there for peer review, then the person and his presentation becomes almost irrelevant....which is why I think so many people actually hoard their finds and play this stupid game because they don't want to be made redundant, and as long as they are the sole guardian at the gate, they can continue to feel important. Their ego at having something special overrides their desire to actually contribute meaningfully to the body of work. Which is why NO ONE who has "super secret stuff" can just zip it until it's published and out there. Because it's not about just having it. It's about letting everyone else know that YOU have it and THEY don't...nyah nyah. But in most cases the "tease" just ends up going on way too long and when there is no product forthcoming, eventually, yes, the presentation causes doubt about the product. We have seen it time and time again on the boards.

And that's fine if that's who you are. I personally don't have that kind of ego ( I have a huge one, don't get me wrong, it just doesn't manifest itself that way). I have no desire to have my name in lights or the kind of accolades that goes along with that. But when people do have that kind of need, their attention seeking can become distracting to the research. I guess it's the difference between people who want to research for the sake of the information and the knowledge gained, and people who research to find something that will make them "A Name".

[Suzi]

Interesting thread here

The Fiona Kendalls of this world I'm quite sure have some seriously interesting tales to tell- whether it's anything Ripper- relevant- who knows- but always worth a listen and an interesting woman... IMHO.

The tantalising prospect of someone having a box of wonders- failing that a photograph/ album can never be dismissed -They MUST exist somewhere- look at the things that have bubbled to the surface over the last 20 yrs or so- some from the 'inside'- who knows what is lurking, unseen,unacknowledged and probably covered in Gawd knows what- probably to stay that way for ever in an attic/shed or who knows where....sadly that's where they may remain.

The trouble is that should something of serious import bubble to the surface it will always become the subject of the 'Fake Fake' brigade on the boards- sometimes when there is something worth a look- we're all too busy thinking 'Oh no that can't be right'- 'Must be a fake'- 'It's crap' to actually take a look at it-

[Look at what happened to Phillip and his photograph!!]

We may be sooooo wrong - -Lets keep our eyes open 'eh!

We live in hope- in a rather strange way- it's things like this that keep us all going after all!

Suzi x

[Ally]

Hi Suzi,

I actually think that Fiona Kendall was one of the times where people jumped in with their mouths before their brains engaged. When you are dealing with personal histories and the like, where there isn't one single artifact to display but rather a collection of memories, people should be given a chance to tell their story BEFORE you decide whether or not they are full of balls. She wasn't given that chance at all. Now I do think she overreacted and got her feathers all ruffled because she wasn't immediately believed, and that's bad on her part, but in general, people should be allowed to get their stories out and then criticized or critiqued.

I realize that the first inclination is always to call hoax, but maybe people ought to shut their mouths long enough to listen a time or two before deciding. Hell I gave Stephen Powell months of listening to before his stories became so outrageously obvious lies that I no longer was willing to listen. If I have the patience to wait a few months for people to unwind their stories, and I am the least patient person on the planet, I really don't see why it's so hard for everyone else. And if something is a hoax, you don't get brownie points for being the first to call it, and if it isn't a hoax and you call it one, you look like a jackass. Fiona Kendall wasn't a hoax. She was a living descendant of a key Ripper player. Does that mean she knows who Jack was? No. But would she probably have had some interesting stories to tell and was worth hearing? Yes.

[Monty]

No, Monty, I would'nt go as far as that, but it is plainly irritating when these chaps come along with a thunder clap of new info that is going to solve the case, and then all we get is a tiny fart and a bad smell left in the corridors of confusion.

Life is full of irritations AP, you of all people my realise that.

Monty

[Suzi]

Hi Ally
Yep you're right- there were a few ruffled feathers there- sadly- Fiona - as you say has a direct family memory of some tales- we may never quite know what was going on there- shame- I'd had listened had I been at that WS 88 meeting!
DON'T get me going on this latest- but there's something lurking out there- there has to be!...Hey and we'll give it a chance if it comes up 'eh- unless it's total crap!
Suz xx

[Monty]

So presentation matters until the information is released, then its nigh on irrelevant?

To me thats a complete waste. The information is primary.

However I completely agree with your ego opinion Ally. We all have one and, as you have admitted, the manifestation varies. Some things we have to bare.

One final point, your take on assessing information when you see it for yourself is admirable. Whilst accepting solely on the words of others is foolish, dismissing just because you havent experience the info is just as careless.

Monty