A Modern Day BS Man/Liz Encounter

[corey123]

Maria, I want to apologize ahead of time, as I am going to be blunt,

I suppose you had read it in almost an hour, a whole book?

This has to do with your increasingly annoying posts. Many of them have little merit and discuss pointless things. Instead of making a new thread for your ideas, you choose to hijack others.

I know of the "important" research that Lynn and Debra are doing, and I appluad their efforts. Yet, there is plenty to discuss, and Daves book most likely lists them.

If you, and others, want to discuss research, yet refuse to give it out, then stop talking about it. We know they are researching, and we know Tom is writing a book on Le' Grand, and we know of Lynn's theories, yet there are appropriate threads at which to discuss such things.

[mariab]

Corey,
Obviously I read the entire available text of the book (apart of about 100 pages not available on GoogleBooks), including the index and the lit references, as mentioned in my post discussing the book. I simply said that there is no new information not already available on casebook (both as documents or ideas in the discussions). This has nothing to do with Dave Yost being a “wonderful author“. We're not discussing the author's prose, but the “enough new theories to keep us busy for a while“ mentioned by The Grave Maurice. Important research pertaining to Berner Street is ongoing, still almost in its initial stages. Give it 2 years, and there will be enough new results “to keep us busy for a while“.

[corey123]

Hello Maria,

No one has the right to go dogging on a book that you are unwilling to read. You cannot glean the books details from the index. I am sorry, I have tried being nice, but this is going too far.

Also, Tom, as far as I know, has never writen a book. Dave Yost is a wounderful author, who wrote many books on Jack, one of which I have.

This is getting truly annoying. Thris thread is about Elizabeth Stride, and the BS man scene.

Can we please get back to the thread topic?

[mariab]

Butterworth on casebook

Lynn Cates wrote:
Hello Maria. Speaking of Butterworth, were you aware that he is officially a Casebook person? (Alex Butterworth.) Now, if only we could get him to talk about HIS research.
Hello Lynn.
He joined casebook at the exact same time as me, posts: 0. Which makes me blush even more considerably about my excessive typing. Have you considered contacting him? PM is (obviously) not activated, but email is available.

[mariab]

David Yost

The Grave Maurice wrote:
Stop typing for a while, dear, and read the book. Then we can talk about it.
Sorry, Grave Maurice, I just perused the book on GoogleBooks, including its index and lit references, and, despite of the book having been published only 2 years ago, I can see NOTHING whatsoever in there that's not already contained on casebook, as a transcribed document or in the forums discussions. Most of the arguments in Yost's discussion are quoted from the Michael DiGrazia Berner Street article in Ripper Notes and from SPE's The man who hunted JTR.
You could maintain that important new theories and ideas are contained in the (about 100) couple pages NOT included in GoogleBooks, but I'm sorry, not buying this.
The TRULY new information to come out pertaining to Berner Street will be coming out in the next 2 years, and it pertains to research currently conducted by Debra Arif and Lynn Cates (and myself, for whatever's worth). Obviously Tom Wescott's book is the one which will discuss Berner Street accurately as a monography.

Here's the link to the David Yost book (and apologies for the long link, including the word “false“ in the end):
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2qf6Tl8PEucC&pg=PA212&dq=Dave+Yost's+Eliz abeth+Stride+and+JtR:+the+Life+and+Death+of+the+Re puted+Third+Victim+(2008)&hl=de&ei=i90bTYWICYau8QO bzdGSBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved =0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

[lynn cates]

Butterworth

Hello Maria. Speaking of Butterworth, were you aware that he is officially a Casebook person? (Alex Butterworth.) Now, if only we could get him to talk about HIS research.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

To Lynn Cates:
Thanks for not being pissed at me. And believe me, Lynn, I've noticed the similar approach from both of us to technical things due to the similar professional background. And understandably, one tiny thing that sometimes (rarely) has bothered me in Examiner articles is the lack of a footnote when technically required. (I seem to recall that R.J. Palmer's pieces don't feature that problem ever, while Tom's pieces did – maybe once or twice.)
And I'm pretty sure that you don't write papers on the subject of "Did Leibniz pass gas at the dinner table?", although I have to say that Butterworth's preoccupation with Marx's hemorroids definitely influenced my consideration of his book, which I have to admit I've only perused online, but I did find it a bit “light“.
Pertaining to “light“ research, there's a British specialist on Berlioz who's produced a 3 vols biography concentrating on Berlioz's personal life (NO mention whatsoever of the music), and I recall a particular spot where he keeps hypothesizing for 8 pages on why a certain British (uncoordinated?) dancer whom Berlioz was enamoured for 5' minutes in his youth fell of a carriage while stepping out and hurt her ankle. I seem to recall it was a real pain in the butt re-selling the 3 vols....
(But this is not a particular problem with Ripperology, where one can research the personal as well. One only needs to consider the important research that Neal Shelden has produced.)

[The Grave Maurice]

Stop typing for a while, dear, and read the book. Then we can talk about it.

[mariab]

The Grave Maurice wrote:
So, did no one read Dave Yost's Elizabeth Stride and JtR: the Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim (2008)? I thought that it offered more than enough new theories to keep us busy for a while.
I recall your mentioning this book already once in July, Maurice. I've heard that Yost concentrated mostly on researching Stride's past in Sweden, and that he ommitted to research Michael Kidney at all. I think he concludes in considering Stride as a Ripper slaying, but I don't think that he offers any new interpretations worth considering pertaining to the witnesses' testimonies. I also doubt it that Yost concentrates at all in the IWEC, which is what interests me right now.
I also recall SPE not considering the book very worthwhile. I've looked it up on amazon, but it doesn't feature the possibility of reading through it. I'd be very interested in what you consider as new theories in this book?

[lynn cates]

not to worry

Hello Maria. No need whatsoever to apologise. I recognise the humour (as I said--I also find it humourous); it's just that you and I are from a similar culture--academia--and there be those who sweat such issues. So, whilst I write papers on "Did Leibniz pass gas at the dinner table?" and you write papers on "Did Rossini pick his nose?" (heh-heh) we worry and bend over backwards about footnotes to avoid technical plagiarism.

And I'm always riding herd over my students to make sure there is not even a HINT of such.

So, it's just one of those things that attend our curious profession. (But again, I rather like the joke, at least at a personal level.)

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Hello Lynn,
I deeply apologize about the nomenclature! ("Lynn Cates' stolen theory“!). The reason I kept using it is that to me it's SOOO completely hilarious because it SOOO totally contrasts your personality and ethics, which even the most dumb person on earth would recognize that they're irreproachable, Lynn. Still, I'll most definitely stop referring to this. It's not fair to you, plus it could even end up influencing the opinions of impressionable newbies.

Lynn Cates wrote:
And to date, I presume that my only original idea is to put the finger on JI for Polly and Annie.
Oh Lynn, if I said that this idea originated by Scott Nelson, will you be terribly disappointed? Still, the Okhrana/detectives agencies part I find fascinating. I can't wait to research this.

Tom Wescott wrote:
Only Clack and Monty think Debs does all my research
Actually...should I reveal here that just a few weeks ago, Rob was saying to me that you're one of the few Ripperologists who quote their (own) research accurately and “wholeheartedly“ in their articles?

[corey123]

Hello Maria,

I have replied in a PM.

[The Grave Maurice]

I'm not aware of anyone other than myself who has offered anything new and viable regarding Berner Street in the last few years.

So, did no one read Dave Yost's Elizabeth Stride and JtR: the Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim (2008)? I thought that it offered more than enough new theories to keep us busy for a while.

[mariab]

Corey123 wrote:
I have a question, did you come to this forum in hopes of studying the ripper, or the ripperologists? Just woundering.
Possibly a fair inquest, and you might be interested to know that it has been asked in musicology too. (As it happens that I happen to know absolutely EVERYTHING about my 3 bosses, including how they'll react to every new idea, and which position they'll take in every discussion. Which doesn't mean to say that we agree about absolutely everything, even if we can finish each other's sentences.)
And yes, I've been studying other Ripperologists, and very intently. Rob Clack comes to mind, Lynn Cates (although for Lynn I'd say that he's more of a great connoisseur of socialist history than of traditional Ripperology), and SPE. (OK, the latter I've been studying from afar...) There's nothing wrong to study someone's mind when they produce good scholarship and happen to still be alive. (And no, that wasn't a death threat...)

[lynn cates]

clarification

Hello Maria and Tom. Maria is quite right that I am the first to admit that I did not originate the Schwartz theory. I have said that before. Nor, so far as I know, has Tom used any of my ideas. And to date, I presume that my only original idea is to put the finger on JI for Polly and Annie. (But it could turn out tomorrow that I come across a 1915 article by Professor Jack Robinson stating the same theory.)

I am not trying to:

1. Come up with a new theory.

2. Get credit for an idea--mine or another's.

3. Write a book. (I have a 395 p doctoral dissertation, and believe me, writing is a PAIN!)

4. Write an essay. (I have 7 papers published in logic and ontology and those were also PAINS.)

In sum, I am NOT a Ripperologist, make no such claim, have no such desire.

But I do have a good many questions for which I seek genuine answers. Hence, my interest in "JTR."

I would point out, however, that to call a theory stolen when adopted by others would be to make Jonathan Hainsworth and John Ruffles thieves as Sir MLM first originated the Druitt theory. Likewise Paul Begg and Jeff Leahy, since Kosminski (unnamed) may have been first championed by Sir Robert A.

Of course, I know you are in jest and the sad old earth must borrow its mirth, etc. But perhaps, a new nomenclature?

Cheers.
LC