JTR Exhibition in Docklands

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh for crying out loud.......get over it!

Is this a boy/girl thing?

[caz]

Caz, you don't have to, if you've bought any of my work and want your money back I'll be happy to refund it in full.

Oh for pity's sake, Neal. What on earth have I written that could have given you the impression that I want my money back?

Whatever beef you have with the exhibition organisers, there is really no call to take it out on people who have not only bought your book and gained a lot from it, but have said repeatedly that they do admire and appreciate your work and would be only too pleased to see the results on public display.

Love,

Caz
X

[Neal Shelden]

Oh for pity's sake, Neal. What on earth have I written that could have given you the impression that I want my money back?

Whatever beef you have with the exhibition organisers, there is really no call to take it out on people who have not only bought your book and gained a lot from it, but have said repeatedly that they do admire and appreciate your work and would be only too pleased to see the results on public display.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz I came on this board to criticize the exhibition, you took it upon yourself to defend it and continuously defend it, therefore I continued to criticize it, you can now "go forward with renewed determination or give up the fight."

By the way, today I wrote to the Director of the Museum in Docklands so I'm now going to take it out on him.

(To all)
But I will just say to anyone out there that bought any of my books, that if those same people believe after reading them that the victims research and the Annie picture should not be in a museum exhibition about Jack the Ripper, then you didn't understand why I did the research in the first place and should have saved your money.

[Neal Shelden]

Your missing the piont. Neil has a very fixed interest (ie the Victims) even that he sees is a very concise veiw (ie Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddows and to a differant extent Kelly)

Thats what his work is about..and he doesnt give an 'F' what we all think about it..that is what Neal Sheldon has done..that is what he is...finish..

And thank God for people like Neal Sheldon...

We can all sit here and RATIONALIZE..but you all know he is right really because Neal did it..

I know whose side I'd rather be on...up the Ripperologists!

Seriously Neal you have my support..I dont even need to think about it...I'm behind you 100% and any program I make will have you as a main advisor..

RESPECT ...yours Jeff xx

in the post

[caz]

(To all)
But I will just say to anyone out there that bought any of my books, that if those same people believe after reading them that the victims research and the Annie picture should not be in a museum exhibition about Jack the Ripper, then you didn't understand why I did the research in the first place and should have saved your money.

Hi Neal,

You see this is where it gets silly, since nobody here has so much as hinted that your material should not be in the Docklands exhibition. On the contrary, everyone you have attacked personally for their observations has agreed that it would be a positive asset.

All I did (and I wasn't alone) was to defend the aspects of the exhibition which - for my numerous sins - I happened to find positive. If you equate this with 'defending' the organisers for their failure to represent your own fine work, then I'm at a loss. To me, that would be akin to saying that nobody should ever defend what's good about the casebook, for instance, or any of the reference works on the case, because they have all similarly failed to concentrate more on the lives of the victims than other aspects. And virtually everyone in the field would be condemned at a stroke.

Tell me, are you going to condemn anyone who still goes to the exhibition, despite reading your views about it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Jenni Shelden]

Caroline,

why are you getting so upset? its not like you organised the event is it?

Jenni

[Neal Shelden]

Hi Neal,

You see this is where it gets silly, since nobody here has so much as hinted that your material should not be in the Docklands exhibition. On the contrary, everyone you have attacked personally for their observations has agreed that it would be a positive asset.

All I did (and I wasn't alone) was to defend the aspects of the exhibition which - for my numerous sins - I happened to find positive. If you equate this with 'defending' the organisers for their failure to represent your own fine work, then I'm at a loss. To me, that would be akin to saying that nobody should ever defend what's good about the casebook, for instance, or any of the reference works on the case, because they have all similarly failed to concentrate more on the lives of the victims than other aspects. And virtually everyone in the field would be condemned at a stroke.

Tell me, are you going to condemn anyone who still goes to the exhibition, despite reading your views about it?

Love,

Caz
X

As I'm talking to the spokesperson for all Ripperologists, I'll probably add further personal attacks against everyone (that I don't remember doing before) at a later date. God, no wonder you wrote a book on Maybrick, you just love fiction don't you! Anyway, nice try at attempting to twist my words but I won't go on the defensive just because of what you say.

And as for your other stupid examples about the casebook and people still going to the exhibition, I fear you have said but you have not understood.

[George Hutchinson]

Can people just walk away from this one?

I can see both sides of the debate. Neal, I agree with your stance but I can see nothing Caz has said that is insulting you or your viewpoint. I have huge admiration for you both as a researcher and a person. I'm sure everyone here has. It is an opinion based on your respect and rationale. The path you are walking down on this thread isn't what people expect from you.

Conflict is all well and good but not when it goes round in circles without progression or resolution but descends into mud-slinging, especially when the comments begin to seem incomprehensible.

I am going to the exhibition myself on Thursday. I will be very surprised if my opinion on its merits and true intentions is changed but I will try to keep an open mind.

I was avoiding further comment here but nobody seems to be stepping in. I have no intention of offending you, Neal. My purpose here is to make an observation as someone I presume you view as coming from the same position as yourself. If that is the case, and I am doing so, I feel it might be time to step back and cool down.

PHILIP

[Ally]

Phil,

I hope you have a good time at the exhibition on Thursday. It sounds like it does have positive things to offer as long as one is able to keep from focusing on a single aspect of disappointment to the exclusion of all other possible positives. I look forward to your assessment both good and bad and hope you will post it here. As someone who will not be able to attend the conference, I am interested in hearing about it from all who attend and hope they are not discouraged from posting their reviews because the conversation has become dominated to the point of inanity by a specific issue.

[caz]

Hi All,

Many thanks, Philip and Ally, for gently steering us back on course.

Caroline,

why are you getting so upset? its not like you organised the event is it?

Jenni

Hi Jen,

The only reason I'm upset is that I've somehow managed to upset Neal (someone I know to be a gent, scholar and bloody nice bloke from having met him in Wolvers last year) when I had no intention of upsetting anyone at all when I first posted my impressions of the exhibition. It would take an awful lot more than any of this to make me upset on behalf of exhibition organisers I don't even know and am not (for the umpteenth time) trying to 'defend' for their omission of relevant material.

God, no wonder you wrote a book on Maybrick, you just love fiction don't you!

Well actually, Neal, I have not written a book on 'Maybrick' (unless you think he was somehow responsible for the diary ). I don't expect you to know this, but the book I wrote with Keith and Seth attempts to tell the story of a controversial document’s first controversial ten years in the public eye, and that story is only too real and extremely complex. But I'll grant you that we did quote a lot of people talking fiction about the subject. There’s a lot of it about and it seems that few are immune.

I'll shut up now before my failed attempts at damage limitation cause any more upset.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bulldog]

I am going to the exhibition myself on Thursday. I will be very surprised if my opinion on its merits and true intentions is changed but I will try to keep an open mind.


PHILIP

Philip,

I am going to follow you there 3 days later and take in the exhibition Sunday afternoon. I'll let you know what I think.

Bulldog

[Neal Shelden]

Well good luck to one and all! I've decided that I've been very mistaken in the way I've treated this subject matter in the past and will take a different course in future.

With my final casebook comment, I will leave you with this quote that I received by email today from the descendant of Annie Chapman. She says:

"Thank you for your email. We too have been to the Docklands exhibition and, like you were very disappointed with it. We had to look really hard to find Annie Chapman and am sure that many people missed her altogether."

[David Knott]

I visited the exhibition on the 17th May. If, in advance of my visit, I was to make a list of the exhibits that I would have wanted to see, then 90% of them were there, and for that I think the organisers should be commended - it can't have been an easy task, and most of the items that were missing probably weren't available.

I have Neal's books, and appreciate his research, and yes, the exhibition is a bit light in terms of the history of the victims, but that didn't ruin it for me. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity to see some of these items, and I'm glad I went.

My own research has focussed more on suspects, witnesses and police officials than victims. For what it's worth, the grand-daughter of one of these, who attended at the same time as me, thought it was well worth the visit, even though the one official document relating to her relative was not included in the display.

[caz]

Hi Neal,

Surely the email you received proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have not been mistaken at all and should not even be thinking of taking a different course. I am bewildered and saddened that this exhibition - which will, when all is said and done, come to an end in November - should have prompted such an extreme reaction. I urge you to slow down a wee bit, take a big breath, and remember that it may well come down to the poor vision of the one person who had overall control of the event.

I wish you all the very best Neal, and am so sorry about all this.

Love,

Caz
XX

[George Hutchinson]

Hi all.

I went to the exhibition for myself today. Not in the least busy - probably only about twenty people there at the time. I made a lot of notes and I have a lot of things to say, both good and bad.

It's late now, however, and I need to get to bed. In advance, though, I will say that overall it is better than I was expecting but it is far from perfect. One thing that does stick in my mind, and did when I was there, was SPE's general rhetorical question about 'what else could you put in there?'

As far as RIPPER items go, I think we have almost everything we can possibly have. I need to address the presentation of the LVP items and how they have dealt with the victims too, though. Julia Hoffbrand actually recognised me and came up to have a chat - I'll be mentioning what we discussed too. Still, tomorrow...

PHILIP