Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Monty]

"It would force new research and revelation which is desperately needed"

New research?

Yeah, cos we are conducting old research.

Whilst people here just talk, others are conducting their research quietly and without self promotion.

This 'new' research is already being conducted.

Monty

[Bridewell]

If There Was One

If as you say the intended audience would have known why did none of those members of the audience speak out at the time or in later years?

The deafening silence and the absence of written corroboration suggests there was no audience.

Hi Trevor,

I did say "the intended audience (if there was one)".

Regards, Bridewell.

[mklhawley]

In my opinion, no. It would actually do the one thing that I happen agree with a certain writer on here, for different reasons about. It would force new research and revelation which is desperately needed. It is needed because the Kosminski/Tumblety/Druitt lines are all dried up and stale.

Hey, not yet!

I have a couple new articles coming up, and with new material!

Mike

[Bridewell]

This theory would explain why no other police figure knew about the positive identification -- an impossibility

Hi Jonathan,

With respect, the fact that no other police figure wrote about such an identification is not the same as no other police figure knowing about it.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

That's a coincidence.

I too have a new article in the pipeline.

Old Ripperology may be about to have a stake plunged through its heart.

Watch this space.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

"It would force new research and revelation which is desperately needed"

New research?

Yeah, cos we are conducting old research.

Whilst people here just talk, others are conducting their research quietly and without self promotion.

This 'new' research is already being conducted.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Are you accusing me of self promoting? If giving opinion and new ideas, guilty. I am not putting anything together to another cause, i.e. a book film or tv documentary. If that, not guilty. I, like you, gain nothing and ask for and expect nothing from this. As you quote from my posting, I can only see that it is me you accuse of the above. I don't give a monkey's for my fame nor infamy. Period.

It is Paul Begg who (amongst others) has constantly called for something new that is desperately needed. Even on this thread. I am in agreement with that particular comment.

And I include myself in those who conduct research quietly as well. Others do the same. Yourself included. You don't have to travel great distances to conduct personal research. Some do.

If we are still conducting old research, just exactly where do we stand at this KNOWN moment in time?
As well as the obvious research (Yes Mike, I saw the post and it is noted), I can see some, those de-bunking the old suspects one by one included in that old research. It isn't appreciated because wheels fall off wagons. And an intense dislike of that is being shown in some quarters. That gets turned into the "awful state of Ripperology" comment. Some people must be very worried indeed the genre will dry up if the famous three are de-bunked once and for all!

Maybe it is just as it is. It's a case of some people seeing that the rubbish we've been served up for years, that ensures this genre never changes unless by the "almighty say so" of the "qualified" few is going out of the window. Shame. Just because it hasn't been challenged before by many, doesn't mean it can be pooh poohed away.

Times have changed Monty. One has to move with the times, like it or not. Blinkers off. That has to be accepted, however much we like it or not. It means that the impression of losing control, whether real or nay, of what is said publically and isn't is now gone.
NOBODY runs this genre, even though a few THINK they do. The internet has given very very many people the chance to research. Only a few are able (like youirself) to be places where things are kept. That's fortunate..but it isn't a level above anyone else trying to find answers to questions. It's an advantage, yes, but not a level above.And if Mr X the unknown researcher is getting access to documents you or Rob or John or X or Y or Z aren't, then brilliant. The MORE people with access to things the better. It's not a closed society.

As regards the new research, yes, we all look forward to seeing it. It would be interesting to see how much of this new research is based on new and hitherto unknown official (police or Home Office) documentation. I am only aware of your and Rob's research into a photograph of graffito of some sort, not that any of your research based upon official police or Home Officedocuments.? My apologies if it is, of course. But then, we aren't told so we don't know. If one is going to say that New research is ongoing, then without giving details, it would be great to know if that includes official paper documentation hitherto unseen and unknown. Is it of great quantity?
What would happen if Mr X suddenly started researching into the same stuff?
What if Mr X published before you? What if he announced here on Casebook the details? Is that wrong? What if he published as he found, instead of waiting for everything? Is that wrong?

Look, I have no beef with you or anyone else researching on the ground, as it were. But until something is produced, we are where we are. Commenting on what we have.

There are many many reasons why the Swanson Marginalia and End paper annotations should only be a curious bit of family memory...at best. Don't blame people like me for questioning its reliability and honesty.. Blame people like Donald McCormick for pulling the wool over people's eyes for years and years. Blame Stephen Knight. Blame Joseph Gorman. Blame the Diary inventors. Blame YOUR and my predecessors. People had the gall to attack Melvin Harris for exposing the rubbish going on.

THEY and they alone have caused the suspicion situation. And remember whilst you are doing it that in the case of the elder statesman McCormick, nice guy and gentleman that he may have been, and others, meticulously planned to deliberately fool people AND make money out of them. The past IS being revealed Monty. And the names of some are not sitting pretty. As you are a dedicated member of this genre I'm absolutely positive you welcome the de-bunking of myth and hoax, game players and hoaxers. But would you do it if those people were known to you personally? Would you dare confront them and say, "confess publically or I will?" Melvin Harris did.

Today it doesn't wash. No matter how careful tracks are covered. There are far too many people who are experts in other fields to reveal untoward hogwash. Woe betide the person who tries it I say. I may not be around to see it in some cases, but someone will be.

All everyone wants is to wipe the slate of hoaxes, cons, games, leg-pulls etc to be wiped clean. Then we can forgive and get on with the real search... for the truth, if it is possible to reach. But whilst old pieces of rubbish still stand around, it just hinders. Hence the clear out.

This is just an opinion. It isn't personal. It doesn't libel, it doesn't slander. It just says it as it is..and whether it is liked or not, doesn't bother me one iota. It isn't a PERSONAL BASH AT A PERSONALITY EITHER, which has been going on throughout this thread. But then for some, that's all part of the fun, isnt it?

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

Steady as she goes.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Steady as she goes.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Chest lighter. Still smiling. Still calm.

best wishes

|Phil

[Monty]

Phil,

Firstly, no, I'm not accusing you of self promotion. If I were I would say so directly, as I have done before.

Secondly, you speak as if the waters are stagnant. They aren't. You speak the debunking of old theories like Harris did as if Harris is someone we should hold as some great God.

People have told me he was a fine researcher but also a bully. That's fine, whatever it takes I guess, however he also was a one sided researcher. He sought evidence to debunk others ideas and promote his own.

No, Harris in my opinion, was not a good researcher.

A good researcher just does that. Seeks information and evidence to add to the story, not to support or debunk a theory. If found information does that then fine.

However that not why its done, and nor should it be. Done it is mark you.

The rest is just talk.


Monty

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

That's a coincidence.

I too have a new article in the pipeline.

Old Ripperology may be about to have a stake plunged through its heart.

Watch this space.

Regards,

Simon

Awesome!

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

Firstly, no, I'm not accusing you of self promotion. If I were I would say so directly, as I have done before.

Secondly, you speak as if the waters are stagnant. They aren't. You speak the debunking of old theories like Harris did as if Harris is someone we should hold as some great God.

People have told me he was a fine researcher but also a bully. That's fine, whatever it takes I guess, however he also was a one sided researcher. He sought evidence to debunk others ideas and promote his own.

No, Harris in my opinion, was not a good researcher.

A good researcher just does that. Seeks information and evidence to add to the story, not to support or debunk a theory. If found information does that then fine.

However that not why its done, and nor should it be. Done it is mark you.

The rest is just talk.


Monty

Hello Monty,

Thank you for clearing up the non-accusation. It is appreciated.

I didn't mention Melvin Harris' own theory on the Ripper on purpose as I personally have no time for it..so that is clear.

I only mentioned his quest to get rid of hoaxes. That is to be applauded. His personality is neither here nor there in this case. As you say, whatever it takees I suppose. As you know, some researchers personalities aren't exactly wonderful... probably yours and mine included in some people's eyes!! haha!

"The rest is just talk". Maybe some find it of interest. To each his or her own. That's not for me to judge.

Just one question.. is it possible, just possible, that a lack of communication and openness causes some of the problems in this genre? Perhaps it causes petty jealousies..perhaps it causes suspicion? Just a thought.

Again, thanks for the response. Appreciated.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

double posting..deleted

[Monty]

Lack of communication is born out of two things.

Clarification and trust.

Clarification because you aren't sure what you have or its significance. If you put a half researched item out there (and reasons why its half researched maybe because you really have gone as far as you can) its either pounced upon and disgarded out of hand or ridiculed, usually by those with theories to protect.

Trust because some have been shown to be untrustworthy. You trust people to be open minded and willing to run with it. Take AP Wolfs disgraceful accusation of Philip Hutchinsons find, the Dutfield Yard photo. Phil had sort opinion of many Ripperologists before going public. Rather that look at the evidence, Wolf accuse Phil of photoshopping. This clearly wasn't the case, and the evidence was laid discrediting Wolf ludicrus allegation.

Long story short, we have now lost a good researcher and an excellent gather of photos and other documentation. Well, you have. I have the pleasure of being a part of Phils close friends with whom he generously shares his finds - and before someone gets overexcited, these finds are mere interests and bring nothing substantially new to the case.

Phil has decided to shut off communication because of the crap he has received. I have done a similar thing, so has Rob and John Bennett. We haven't completely turned our back but we are being selective. And please, again, do understand this is in regards anything of interest on the periferies as opposed to anything of huge significance, which would be shared.

Bottom line is that community doesn't benefit itself.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

As the AP Wolf/Philip Hutchinson situation happened before I started posting, though witnessed some of the problem, I may not be totally au fait with the complete story..so will let it be as is.
Speaking personally, I have met Philip Hutchinson. He has never shown any dislike nor animosity towards me and as far as I am aware, holds nothing against me either.

John Bennett I have had a little more contact with and have, for example helped in a small way with some early research into Lampard, a long while back now. He is a very nice man indeed.

As far as clarification and trust is concerned, I can see your points. However there is another side which I mentioned before. When there has been so much skullduggery in the past people who are naturally opened minded may, after a while, become more of a suspicious character. I don't think that suspicion is of a personal nature against any one person. Sadly, the genre has contributed to shooting itself in the foot in this way too. So the community hasnt benefited itself for many years, has it?

I don't want this situation...I'm pretty sure you don't either. That is why the clearing of the old dead wood is for some a necessity. It may or may not be founded on a different value. A clean slate as it were.

Will it happen? Can it happen? Sadly doubt it.

I propose a DEBATE at a conference in the future on the future of Ripperology in relation to the above topic .. not just a set of presentations. An "AGM" as it were.

The protection of theories? Not only but also... the protection of reputations, Monty. The protection of ego's.

All three are very fragile things.

As far as losing researchers are concerned.. we will lose them for many reasons over time. Yes, its a pity. No, the community doesn't benefit itself..but giving in to the wrong-uns isnt the answer... whatever or whoever those wrong-uns are.. it just causes small side groups not a community working together.

Time for a major pow-wow methinks, as proposed. The genre is big enough now to tolerate it.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

"It would force new research and revelation which is desperately needed"

New research?

Yeah, cos we are conducting old research.

Whilst people here just talk, others are conducting their research quietly and without self promotion.

This 'new' research is already being conducted.

Monty

I hope it comes quicker than your photo