25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[Phil Carter]

You do know, Abby, that you are only able to air your views here about what's ripper history and what isn't because of the diary?

The casebook came into being as a direct result IIRC.

Happy Friday one and all.

And may Chelsea beat the you-know-what out of Leicester tomorrow!

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caroline

As much as I would love that to happen tomorrow.
It won't. Because you are wrong.

Chelsea play Burnley at Stamford Bridge tomorrow..not Leicester City.


As the person on this site with more knowledge about Chelsea FC than most...Id hate you to end up with twisted knickers because of a Chelsea faux pas.


Have a nice weekend without a hint of insulting anyone. 😊



Phil

[Sam Flynn]

Goodness me, Sammy, you have a short memory. The very first post in The Greatest Thread of All references this very piece of analysis (2008!) and uses it to advance the case against Maybrick due to the similarity in scale of relevance for Middlesex Street! Talk about turning full circle ... and you were one of the first to respond to it!

I wasn't aware that I was "anti" geographical profiling back then, Ike. Do you have a link? My memory doesn't extend as far as 2008, at least not in Casebook terms. Before the "Great Casebook Server Crash", I had something like 10,000 posts here (or was it more?) and I can't remember them all

[John G]

Goodness me, Sammy, you have a short memory. The very first post in The Greatest Thread of All references this very piece of analysis (2008!) and uses it to advance the case against Maybrick due to the similarity in scale of relevance for Middlesex Street!

Talk about turning full circle ... and you were one of the first to respond to it!

Ike

Middlesex Street? Well apart from the diary itself, which is a hotly disputed document, is there one iota of evidence that Maybrick had any association with Middlesex Street.

[John G]

I wasn't aware that I was "anti" geographical profiling back then, Ike. Do you have a link? My memory doesn't extend as far as 2008, at least not in Casebook terms. Before the "Great Casebook Server Crash", I had something like 10,000 posts here (or was it more?) and I can't remember them all

There was a brief discussion here about geographical profiling, involving Dan Norder. However, you don't appear to have responded, Sam: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...t=Geographical

I've also just noticed that the very first post in the thread also refers to geographical profiling: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...t=Geographical

[Sam Flynn]

There was a brief discussion here about geographical profiling, involving Dan Norder. However, you don't appear to have responded, Sam: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...t=Geographical

Thanks JG.

[Iconoclast]

There was a brief discussion here about geographical profiling, involving Dan Norder. However, you don't appear to have responded, Sam: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...t=Geographical

I've also just noticed that the very first post in the thread also refers to geographical profiling: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...t=Geographical

As I said, The Greatest Thread of All ...

[John G]

As I said, The Greatest Thread of All ...

Erm...I'll take your word for it!

[Harry D]

Holocaust denial continues more than 70 years after the end of the Second World War, we just can't shake it, but just because there are some people who refuse to face facts, it doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't happen.

Most Holocaust deniers don't deny the persecution of Jews (and other "untermensch") under the Third Reich. They dispute the alleged mass exterminations via the gas chambers. It doesn't really help that such debate is criminalized in some European countries. That only fuels theories about Jewish conspiracies and whatnot.

[Observer]

An honest answer about "The Eight Little Whores" would be sufficient.

Here's a one that has slipped in under the radar.

If I remember correctly, but don't quote me, this subject came up a number of years ago. Again I may be incorrect but it went something like this. There was indeed a poem submitted, in 1888, to a newspaper along the lines of "The Eight Little Whores" which featured in Donald McCormick's book. However, Donald McCormick, altered the original poem somewhat, as was his wont, for his book on Jack The Ripper. The thing is, the "Diarist" included in the diary an attempt to formulate a poem with words crossed out, which suggested this draft was very similar in content to the poem which was submitted to the newspaper. The only thing is though they included words which Donbald McCormick had changed, thus implying that they had been influenced by McCormick's book, rather than being the originator of the poem as submitted to the newspaper in 1888.

As I said, I'm not certain that the above is an accurate description of events, but I believe it went something like that.

[Sam Flynn]

They dispute the alleged mass exterminations via the gas chambers. It doesn't really help that such debate is criminalized in some European countries. That only fuels theories about Jewish conspiracies and whatnot.

It's not just "alleged", though. It's one of the best-attested facts in all of history, and these bozos should rightly be censured for spreading the lie that the mass exterminations didn't happen; it is they who fuel the conspiracy theories, and nobody else.

[Harry D]

It's not just "alleged", though. It's one of the best-attested facts in all of history, and these bozos should rightly be censured for spreading the lie that the mass exterminations didn't happen; it is they who fuel the conspiracy theories, and nobody else.

If it's "one of the best-attested facts in all of history" what does it matter if a lunatic fringe deny it? Like I said, censorship only fuels the fire. Please don't tell me it's to prevent another pogrom. More chance of plaiting fog than something like that ever repeating itself.

[Sam Flynn]

If it's "one of the best-attested facts in all of history" what does it matter if a lunatic fringe deny it? Like I said, censorship only fuels the fire.

I said "censured" (criticised, condemned) not "censored", Harry. In hindsight, I might have chosen a different word; they do look very similar.

Please don't tell me it's to prevent another pogrom.

They should simply be censured for being stupid, malicious and ignoring or twisting empirical evidence to advance their own agenda. There's far too much of that in the world as it is, and it's precisely this kind of ignorance that leads to things like pogroms, lynchings, extremist terrorism (etc) in the first place.

[David Orsam]

Most Holocaust deniers don't deny the persecution of Jews (and other "untermensch") under the Third Reich. They dispute the alleged mass exterminations via the gas chambers. It doesn't really help that such debate is criminalized in some European countries. That only fuels theories about Jewish conspiracies and whatnot.

"Alleged" mass exterminations???? Crikey! Well there's always one I suppose.

I wouldn't even mind so much (you can live in ignorance if you wish) but your post, Harry, does not respond in any way to mine, yet you quoted me as if you were responding to me. I didn't say that Holocaust deniers "deny the persecution of the Jews" so how is your post a response to mine?

This is what I said:

"Holocaust denial continues more than 70 years after the end of the Second World War, we just can't shake it, but just because there are some people who refuse to face facts, it doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't happen."

You will note that I did not say alleged facts, incidentally, but facts.

However, my post was not about the Holocaust, it was about how the longstanding existence of an argument, regardless of the number of people who believe in it, does not validate that argument in any way.

[Henry Flower]

"Alleged" mass exterminations???? Crikey! Well there's always one I suppose.

I wouldn't even mind so much (you can live in ignorance if you wish) but your post, Harry, does not respond in any way to mine, yet you quoted me as if you were responding to me. I didn't say that Holocaust deniers "deny the persecution of the Jews" so how is your post a response to mine?

This is what I said:

"Holocaust denial continues more than 70 years after the end of the Second World War, we just can't shake it, but just because there are some people who refuse to face facts, it doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't happen."

You will note that I did not say alleged facts, incidentally, but facts.

However, my post was not about the Holocaust, it was about how the longstanding existence of an argument, regardless of the number of people who believe in it, does not validate that argument in any way.

I used to believe that the Holocaust had been exagerrated and distorted for political ends. I enjoyed having this minority opinion and what I thought was a kind of hidden knowledge. I read a lot about it. It all made sense. Then I got a bit older and read the other side of the argument. And I read, and read, and read. And I realised I'd been seduced by distortions, omissions, and plenty - plenty - of outright lies. And so though I don't agree with banning any opinion or speech, I do understand why denial is banned in certain places. The evidence for the deliberate mass extermination is so plentiful, so indisputable, and so freely available, that to publish Holocaust denial can only be seen as a wilful and malevolent declaration of racial animus.

But I don't approve of banning ideas, I agree that this gives them a countercultural appeal to those of a certain bent. Better to do what David and others do, and what was done to Irving in the courtroom: destroy bad arguments - and their authors - with the facts. However long it takes.

[Henry Flower]

I used to believe that the Holocaust had been exagerrated and distorted for political ends. I enjoyed having this minority opinion and what I thought was a kind of hidden knowledge. I read a lot about it. It all made sense. Then I got a bit older and read the other side of the argument. And I read, and read, and read. And I realised I'd been seduced by distortions, omissions, and plenty - plenty - of outright lies. And so though I don't agree with banning any opinion or speech, I do understand why denial is banned in certain places. The evidence for the deliberate mass extermination is so plentiful, so indisputable, and so freely available, that to publish Holocaust denial can only be seen as a wilful and malevolent declaration of racial animus.

But I don't approve of banning ideas, I agree that this gives them a countercultural appeal to those of a certain bent. Better to do what David and others do, and what was done to Irving in the courtroom: destroy bad arguments - and their authors - with the facts. However long it takes.

"Alleged mass exterminations" is of course unavoidably an insinuation that not one, not ten, not hundreds, but hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Jews, systematically and conspiratorially lied about the war years, "Alleged mass exterminations" = "The Jews are conspiratorial liars". It's an unavoidable corollary.