Jack the Ripper, The Facts

[Dan Norder]

Please name even just one factual error in what I said about Begg's book. You won't find any, just things you have a different opinion on.

[Jeff Leahy]

Anyone who would think badly of me for giving an honest opinion on a book that was sent to me specifically so that I would review it isn't worth worrying about. The people who assume that the review wasn't honest are definitely not worth worrying about.

We dont think badly of you for giving an honest opinion, its giving an opinion full of sweep statements and factual errors that we all object to..

[Jenni Shelden]

well good.

Anyway, the facts...

[Dan Norder]

Anyone who would think badly of me for giving an honest opinion on a book that was sent to me specifically so that I would review it isn't worth worrying about. The people who assume that the review wasn't honest are definitely not worth worrying about.

[Tom_Wescott]

Fair point. I actually am not having a go at you. I know you might find this surprising - but i was thinking of your image.

Great idea, Jen. Everyone should have a photo of Dan Norder on their computer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. pollies for the mess up. I see now that you didn't say what I thought you said about the reviews.

[Jenni Shelden]

Fair point. I actually am not having a go at you. I know you might find this surprising - but i was thinking of your image.

Nevermind

Jenni

[Dan Norder]

but he could have choosen not to say anything at all. After all we all know what he thinks of the book (and of many things) already and so do not need educating on it.

"Dicksie Cribb" was specifically asking for opinions, so I gave an opinion. I'm also fairly sure that Dicksie and the newer posters didn't already know what I thought. Everybody who posted here could have chosen to not say anything at all, just like everyone can choose to not say anything on all the other posts as well.... which kind of defeats the purpose of a message board, right?

[Jeff Leahy]

Just to pick upon Tom Wescott’s comments about the FACTS, he says the book ‘also contains Paul's personal musings that reach far outside of the factual record’ and he cites by way of example Mrs Mary Malcolm’s story.

Now this is ineresting, because its a story i know well from Richard Jones...
*
Now, Mrs Malcolm’s story was widely reported in the contemporary press, so it is part of the factual record, just as Mrs Maxwell’s claim to have seen and talked to Mary Kelly several hours after she must have been dead is part of the factual record or is Matthew Packer’s claim to have sold Stride some grapes, and it is perfectly legitimate to examine Mrs Malcolm’s story, which is what the FACTS does.

Paul neither concludes that she was telling the truth nor that she was lying, but ends the section (I have the book infront of me) with a question: ‘Had Stride for many years masqueraded as Mrs Stokes to obtain money from Mrs Malcolm?’

The reader is left to draw their own conclusions from a fair and unbiased presentation of the.. FACTS.
*
If Paul had of omitted Mrs Malcolm’s widely reported story which was also told at the inquest then with some justification he could be accused of ignoring a story which perhaps provided an insight into Stride’s character and personality.

The FACTS didn’t offer a conclusion that it was or wasn’t Stride that Mrs Malcolm met, but simply asked whether it could have been? Which is a very lagitimate question...

It was a fair and unbiased account of the facts as they were reported in the contemporary press....

This accusation therefore is incorrect where does the facts go out side the Factual record?

I beleive that it is fairly well documented that Paul Begg has accepted the claim that; the police new about Pipeman, and has acknowledged error on his part.
*

[Jenni Shelden]

Tom,

he didnt he said it was unbiased thats what i said thats what i meant...

[Tom_Wescott]

Jenni,

I don't know why you say that Paul is not on the Casebook. You know full well he is and that he reads it all the time. If he feels moved to respond to something, he responds, either on the boards or through PM. And I missed the part where Dan admitted his reviews are biased.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jenni Shelden]

Dan and Tom,

I merely meant that Dan suggested that his review of the facts - was an unbiased account of his opinion of the book and yet he still uses every opportunity to criticise it/Paul on the CB where he knows Paul does not post and therefore is more unlikely to respond. I meant that he was trying to say he was a nice fair guy, but he could have choosen not to say anything at all. After all we all know what he thinks of the book (and of many things) already and so do not need educating on it. Dan knew people would say what they have about his reasons for posting his post and yet he posted it anyway, one might wonder why -

but that would be unfair to Dan, I was just merely thinking , if Dan wanted people to take him more seriously one way he could do that would be by not posting such things.

That said i really am going against this idea in posting this post, and one mgiht think it was pretty pointless

but ive written it now so all things considered i will be posting it.

I personally am looking forward to more amicable relations with Dan, and am actually now being nice - althoghu it may not seem it - in saying this - I am not having a go at you Dan

Jenni

[Dan Norder]

The evidence was already produced yesterday -- the dates don't match, which proves Bower wrong.

But because you were too lazy to go look up the info in Cornwell's book to see that I was right, I've also now provided photos... on the appropriate thread.

So, again, please stop taking over unrelated threads to make your ridiculous accusations.

[Jeff Leahy]

Well someone appears to be making a vendetta..

Why dont you produce the evidence to support this claim on the approprate thread?

[Dan Norder]

Why dont you just concentrate on producing the scientific evidence you claim proves Peter Bower fabricated his results.

And stop taking over other threads to continue your ridiculous personal vendetta. I already pointed out that the watermarks from the papers Bower claimed were from the same batch of 24 sheets were from entirely different years.

[Dan Norder]

and thats why you chose to randomly attack it here.

Randomly? It's a thread to discuss the quality of the book. That's the opposite of random.

Attack? Well, gee, if a book is full of errors and has a pretty overwhelming obvious bias, it's not unreasonable to let other people know about it. In fact, it's pretty much a professional responsibility. I know certain people do puff reviews of authors in their circle of acquaintances, but I think that's pretty damned irresponsible. Begg should be expected to be criticized just like any other author if he makes mistakes or false claims. Fair is fair.