Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Suspect Discussion: RE : Joseph Issacs - by Joolz 2 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Limehouse 3 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by moste 4 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by moste 4 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by GUT 5 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Mike J. G. 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (37 posts)
Bury, W.H.: Mock trial for Bury Feb 3 - (20 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Whitehchapel pubs, with a Ripper connection...... - (11 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (11 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Mr Blotchy - (2 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Media > Books > Ripper Authors

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-18-2013, 07:04 PM
Jenni Shelden Jenni Shelden is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 448
Default Plagiarism in The Evil Within - Trevor Marriott (moved discussion)

Admin note: As we do not wish to overshadow all the other fine efforts of the people who contributed to Ripperologist 132 we have decided to move all discussion to this thread so that the debate may continue. To read the original topic that began this discussion, please go here.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally View Post
Now that I have read the article I would also like to congratulate Mark Ripper on his very detailed, and very neutral, laying out of his case. The column format makes it fairly easy for the reader, easy except for the constant thud of getting hit over the head with the evidence. I thought I would have something quite inflammatory to say after reading it, but in the end, I am left just shaking my head in dumb disbelief at the absolute effrontery that's been exposed. Mark's closing statement was an absolute gem of understatement and insight.
quite right Ally, Mark has great integrity, it is a fine piece.

There is a spectra of great work in this issue, perhaps we should move the Marriott talk to its own thread to not mix this unearthing with others?

Jenni
__________________
“be just and fear not”

Last edited by Admin : 06-19-2013 at 04:33 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-19-2013, 11:04 AM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

At first I thought I'd get away with being non-inflammatory on this topic, however this morning I wake up to find that on another site, Mark Ripper's character is being called into question for writing this piece. That's right, the general population appears to be remaining mum to the wholesale copyright and theft of intellectual property that a Ripper author we've all paid money to has engaged in. And yet the fringe finds time to call Mark into question for even daring to expose this blatant copyright infringement. I would respond there, but my account got deleted years ago, which is why I am responding here, mostly because, this trumpet the lunatic fringe is attempting to sound is blatantly ridiculous.

However, as it doesn't appear anyone over there has any desire to state the bleeding obvious, allow me.

What was Mark's motive? Totally irrelevant. Even if he lay awake dreaming of the day he could take Marriot down ( he didn't), it is entirely irrelevant to the intellectual property question that has been raised. Did Trevor Marriott blatantly and freely copy from over a dozen different people's work in a book that he accepted an advance of money and royalties from? Considering the sheer AMOUNT of "borrowing" that appears to have gone on, has he agreed to share his royalties with the people it appears actually did write a huge portion of his book?

People are claiming this is an attack "meant to drive Marriott away from the genre". Really? REALLY? He blatantly took intellectual property from another person without their consent or knowledge, published it in a book HE gets the money for while slapping his name on their work, and thinks because he listed them in the acknowledgement that makes it fair game? WHO is going to buy another book from him now knowing that? How would you feel if it had been YOU who had worked hard, published an article for peanuts and then found someone had taken it, without your knowledge and consent, slapped their name on it and accepted money for your work?

He claims the publishers didn't tell him there was anything wrong with that. Doesn't first grade teach you about copying from others?

It absolutely galls me that people are attacking Mark and defending Trevor Marriott. People talk about the rot in this field all the time. Thanks for the reminder.

Now I am going to go read Cadosche.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.

Last edited by Ally : 06-19-2013 at 11:14 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-19-2013, 11:42 AM
Phil H Phil H is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 2,362
Default

I too think Mark did a superb job of demonstrating the point he makes. The position is made so clear that his case cannot be refuted without seeking to denigrate the man rather than the argument. It is an excellent article, every bit as important as the one that revealed the reality behind "Uncle Jack". Mark should ignore the negative responses and i am sure he will.

I do think we should be very careful about what we say on here. I suspect that Mr Marriott may well be entwined in some very serious and potentially costly (financially and personally) legal wrangling. I do not know what the penalties might be under copyright law if the case is pursued.To me, it seems obvious that the suspension of publishing of his promised new book is connected to the publishers being alerted to what happened in regard to the previous publication.

Personally (though I carry no brief for Mr Marriott and disagreed with him on almost everything) I am sad that someone who has published on JtR (and whom - irrespective of my not agreeing with his thesis - I think writes in a very readable way) should be so totally exposed in this way. This does our field no good at all and reinforces the perception that it is a subject without scholarship and tawdry). On readability, I am referring to his Ripper volume, which is the only one of his books I have read.

But Trevor is not here to respond to or counter any posts here. So I will say very little.

Suffice it to say that the exposure comes as no surprise to me. Nor his final responses. Then again, he must right now be in a very difficult place.

I await further developments with interest.

Phil
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-19-2013, 11:58 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally View Post
At first I thought I'd get away with being non-inflammatory on this topic, however this morning I wake up to find that on another site, Mark Ripper's character is being called into question for writing this piece. That's right, the general population appears to be remaining mum to the wholesale copyright and theft of intellectual property that a Ripper author we've all paid money to has engaged in. And yet the fringe finds time to call Mark into question for even daring to expose this blatant copyright infringement. I would respond there, but my account got deleted years ago, which is why I am responding here, mostly because, this trumpet the lunatic fringe is attempting to sound is blatantly ridiculous.

However, as it doesn't appear anyone over there has any desire to state the bleeding obvious, allow me.

What was Mark's motive? Totally irrelevant. Even if he lay awake dreaming of the day he could take Marriot down ( he didn't), it is entirely irrelevant to the intellectual property question that has been raised. Did Trevor Marriott blatantly and freely copy from over a dozen different people's work in a book that he accepted an advance of money and royalties from? Considering the sheer AMOUNT of "borrowing" that appears to have gone on, has he agreed to share his royalties with the people it appears actually did write a huge portion of his book?

People are claiming this is an attack "meant to drive Marriott away from the genre". Really? REALLY? He blatantly took intellectual property from another person without their consent or knowledge, published it in a book HE gets the money for while slapping his name on their work, and thinks because he listed them in the acknowledgement that makes it fair game? WHO is going to buy another book from him now knowing that? How would you feel if it had been YOU who had worked hard, published an article for peanuts and then found someone had taken it, without your knowledge and consent, slapped their name on it and accepted money for your work?

He claims the publishers didn't tell him there was anything wrong with that. Doesn't first grade teach you about copying from others?

It absolutely galls me that people are attacking Mark and defending Trevor Marriott. People talk about the rot in this field all the time. Thanks for the reminder.

Now I am going to go read Cadosche.
But the motive is quite clear and relevant. The first book was self published in 2008. Before I became much more actively involved in Ripper research and before much of my highly contentious research came to the forefront.

Why did it take him 5 years to decide to carry out this exercise ? and what in 2012/13 prompted him to suddenly wake up one day and decide to carry out an extensive investigation into the book ?

Clearly as I have said as have others the hidden agenda was to try to discredit me as an individual which he and others would hope would affect my credibility etc and my work. This is clearly evident with the last part of the article where he makes a feeble attempt at trying to destroy the content of my Ripper presentation at Enfield.

It has done neither it has simply highlighted the lengths some will go to silence me and shows Mark Rippers actions to be obsessive, sad and pathetic. I did warn him that the lengths he had gone would come back to smack him in the face and I have been proved right. He has done himself no favours.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:20 PM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

[quote=Trevor Marriott;264376]
Quote:
But the motive is quite clear and relevant. The first book was self published in 2008. Before I became much more actively involved in Ripper research and before much of my highly contentious research came to the forefront.

Why did it take him 5 years to decide to carry out this exercise ? and what in 2012/13 prompted him to suddenly wake up one day and decide to carry out an extensive investigation into the book ?
Because you republished it in 2013 and presumably accepted an advance of money for it?

Quote:
Clearly as I have said as have others the hidden agenda was to try to discredit me as an individual which he and others would hope would affect my credibility etc and my work.
Trevor, darling, here's the deal. It absolutely does not matter if every one on the planet is seeking to discredit you. What matters is how you conduct yourself. This book is copyright infringement. Period. It was not incumbent on a copy editor to find copyright violations. They check spelling and grammar and probably very little else. It was not incumbent on your publisher to catch your copyright violations. I assume they presume people write the works they submit. (Well yes it was incumbent on them, but it was not wholly their responsibility). It was incumbent upon you, to present this work accurately, including who the actual authors were.

You have not apologized to any of the authors whose work you appropriated and accepted money for. They worked hard researching and writing their pieces. They deserve the credit and the financial reward for their work.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:23 PM
Phil H Phil H is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 2,362
Default

Rather than attacking Mark, Trevor - I would like to see your response, in detail, to his case which is argued point by point.

It does not matter to me what Mark's motives might be - though as a published author, and one until recently promising a new book, you are (as any author is) open to "audit" of your methods.

As it stands you have been found grievously wanting in that department and what is now required - if you put any store by your reputation - is your explanation point by point.

Attacking your critics will gain you nothing, but could suggest that their case is a valid one to which you have no response other than a personal one.

I am by the way, pleased to see you here to respond to what might be said.

Phil
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:25 PM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

[quote=Phil H;264374]
Quote:
I too think Mark did a superb job of demonstrating the point he makes. The position is made so clear that his case cannot be refuted without seeking to denigrate the man rather than the argument. It is an excellent article, every bit as important as the one that revealed the reality behind "Uncle Jack". Mark should ignore the negative responses and i am sure he will.
Yep. He's got more class in his little finger than I possess in my entire body.


Quote:
But Trevor is not here to respond to or counter any posts here. So I will say very little.

Phil
So it is clear, Trevor was allowed back to the site last week after speaking briefly with myself and after I ran it by Stephen Ryder. This was prior to the article coming out and prior to any allegations made. I would not have made any comments had I not known that he was able to freely respond should he choose to do so.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:42 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,786
Default

[quote=Ally;264378]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

Because you republished it in 2013 and presumably accepted an advance of money for it?



Trevor, darling, here's the deal. It absolutely does not matter if every one on the planet is seeking to discredit you. What matters is how you conduct yourself. This book is copyright infringement. Period. It was not incumbent on a copy editor to find copyright violations. They check spelling and grammar and probably very little else. It was not incumbent on your publisher to catch your copyright violations. I assume they presume people write the works they submit. (Well yes it was incumbent on them, but it was not wholly their responsibility). It was incumbent upon you, to present this work accurately, including who the actual authors were.

You have not apologized to any of the authors whose work you appropriated and accepted money for. They worked hard researching and writing their pieces. They deserve the credit and the financial reward for their work.
As far as I am concerned and was concerned the acknowledgment at the front of the book clearly allows for any writer who feels that their copyright has been infringed were invited to contact the publisher. In the first book that referred to contacting me direct.

I think this whole issue is being blown up out of all proportion after all the whole book is not copied.

As to the book itself it is a compilation of known serial killers whose crimes are widely known and recorded for all to see quite openly on the web. The material content from the writers articles must have come from official police files newspaper and television reports.

So all the original writers have done in my view is gathered all of that together and added their own words to it to make up their articles so in effect it could be argued that all they have done is taken someone else material and used it in their articles. Because I doubt many would have been directly involved in the cases.

Lets face it there are only so many ways you can write "A lured B to country lane and shot him three times through the head"etc etc.

Like I said maybe I was naïeve with regards to copyright issues way back in 2008.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-19-2013, 12:58 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil H View Post
Rather than attacking Mark, Trevor - I would like to see your response, in detail, to his case which is argued point by point.

It does not matter to me what Mark's motives might be - though as a published author, and one until recently promising a new book, you are (as any author is) open to "audit" of your methods.

As it stands you have been found grievously wanting in that department and what is now required - if you put any store by your reputation - is your explanation point by point.

Attacking your critics will gain you nothing, but could suggest that their case is a valid one to which you have no response other than a personal one.

I am by the way, pleased to see you here to respond to what might be said.

Phil
Hi Phil
Its not about attacking my critics its defending my actions and putting them in the correct perspective. But his actions motives and his obsession certainly need attacking.

At no time have I said or written that the book was all my own work. I readily acknowledged the other writers. In high insight maybe I should have linked them to the articles but that was in 2008 and I was naïve to copyrighting etc.

The actions of Mark Ripper and the lengths he has gone to clearly show an agenda. That being to discredit me. After all the book had been out since 2008.

By his own admissions he sits in a theatre hastily writing down everything I say during my 2 hour talk and uses it in the article. What has my talk got to do with the book issue? He passes adverse comments and criticisms about almost every part of the talk. But that is to be expected from one who want to prop up the old outdated theories and that doesn't bother me now.

So why 5 years later does he go on a mission which took months and no doubt he spent a lot of his own money. No one does that as a exercise without a motive and an objective. Certainly not just to prove someone used someone elses words in a book.

The man is sad he needs to take a look at himself and his life and I will tell him so face to face if we ever meet.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-19-2013, 01:21 PM
The Good Michael The Good Michael is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hsinchu, Taiwan
Posts: 3,773
Default

[quote=Trevor Marriott;264383]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally View Post

So all the original writers have done in my view is gathered all of that together and added their own words to it to make up their articles so in effect it could be argued that all they have done is taken someone else material and used it in their articles. Because I doubt many would have been directly involved in the cases.
Professionals take information and formulate new theses. They quote other sources to support their theses and by doing so, show the reader that these sources are valuable to the writer as pioneers and as supporting evidence. This is how non-fictional writing works. It's academic and it's respectful, and it's the understood method.

Mike
__________________
huh?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.