Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[Phil Carter]

Name one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

Is this another example of your infamous satirical humour?

For as it is Wimbledon fortnight in GB, I'll quote Mr McEnroe..

"You canNOT be serious!"


best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

there are far too many people on these boards who will viciously attack any point of view put forward which threatens their own entrenched situation

Name one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Or your evidence discrediting the Marginalia.

Monty

That wont take a lot to do that

What amazes me is you with your background you can sit there and honestly beleive the content of it in the first instance and then continually suggest it is all genuine.

[Monty]

Dave,

I didn't say they won't post on here, or that they won't post anything of significance.

What I'm saying is that they are more considered.

They may choose a publication, book or internet to share their finds. The medium is their choice and not ours to dictate.

However, as I said, they do still post.

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

Regardless of politics

Coming from a relatively ignorant newbie, there are far too many people on these boards who will viciously attack any point of view put forward which threatens their own entrenched situation...what makes this worse is that there is a kind of selective blindness between target theorem and target theorist...

I'm no angel, (God knows I make my mistakes, and I am fully prepared to pay for them), but I at least hope I see a difference between vigorously challenging a theorem, and badmouthing it's proponent...many alas do not...

I'm even more saddened that people like Philip, Rob and John, (all people I deeply respect), won't post here any more...

But please, on a practical level, what can we do to rectify this situation?

Genuinely

Dave

[Monty]

I hope it comes quicker than your photo

Or your evidence discrediting the Marginalia.

Monty

[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

[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

[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]

double posting..deleted

[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

[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!

[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

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Steady as she goes.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Chest lighter. Still smiling. Still calm.

best wishes

|Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

Steady as she goes.

Regards,

Simon