Plagiarism in The Evil Within - Trevor Marriott (moved discussion)

[Phil H]

Rather than attacking Mark, Trevor - I would like to see your response, in detail, to his case which is argued point by point.

It does not matter to me what Mark's motives might be - though as a published author, and one until recently promising a new book, you are (as any author is) open to "audit" of your methods.

As it stands you have been found grievously wanting in that department and what is now required - if you put any store by your reputation - is your explanation point by point.

Attacking your critics will gain you nothing, but could suggest that their case is a valid one to which you have no response other than a personal one.

I am by the way, pleased to see you here to respond to what might be said.

Phil

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;264376]

But the motive is quite clear and relevant. The first book was self published in 2008. Before I became much more actively involved in Ripper research and before much of my highly contentious research came to the forefront.

Why did it take him 5 years to decide to carry out this exercise ? and what in 2012/13 prompted him to suddenly wake up one day and decide to carry out an extensive investigation into the book ?

Because you republished it in 2013 and presumably accepted an advance of money for it?

Clearly as I have said as have others the hidden agenda was to try to discredit me as an individual which he and others would hope would affect my credibility etc and my work.

Trevor, darling, here's the deal. It absolutely does not matter if every one on the planet is seeking to discredit you. What matters is how you conduct yourself. This book is copyright infringement. Period. It was not incumbent on a copy editor to find copyright violations. They check spelling and grammar and probably very little else. It was not incumbent on your publisher to catch your copyright violations. I assume they presume people write the works they submit. (Well yes it was incumbent on them, but it was not wholly their responsibility). It was incumbent upon you, to present this work accurately, including who the actual authors were.

You have not apologized to any of the authors whose work you appropriated and accepted money for. They worked hard researching and writing their pieces. They deserve the credit and the financial reward for their work.

[Trevor Marriott]

At first I thought I'd get away with being non-inflammatory on this topic, however this morning I wake up to find that on another site, Mark Ripper's character is being called into question for writing this piece. That's right, the general population appears to be remaining mum to the wholesale copyright and theft of intellectual property that a Ripper author we've all paid money to has engaged in. And yet the fringe finds time to call Mark into question for even daring to expose this blatant copyright infringement. I would respond there, but my account got deleted years ago, which is why I am responding here, mostly because, this trumpet the lunatic fringe is attempting to sound is blatantly ridiculous.

However, as it doesn't appear anyone over there has any desire to state the bleeding obvious, allow me.

What was Mark's motive? Totally irrelevant. Even if he lay awake dreaming of the day he could take Marriot down ( he didn't), it is entirely irrelevant to the intellectual property question that has been raised. Did Trevor Marriott blatantly and freely copy from over a dozen different people's work in a book that he accepted an advance of money and royalties from? Considering the sheer AMOUNT of "borrowing" that appears to have gone on, has he agreed to share his royalties with the people it appears actually did write a huge portion of his book?

People are claiming this is an attack "meant to drive Marriott away from the genre". Really? REALLY? He blatantly took intellectual property from another person without their consent or knowledge, published it in a book HE gets the money for while slapping his name on their work, and thinks because he listed them in the acknowledgement that makes it fair game? WHO is going to buy another book from him now knowing that? How would you feel if it had been YOU who had worked hard, published an article for peanuts and then found someone had taken it, without your knowledge and consent, slapped their name on it and accepted money for your work?

He claims the publishers didn't tell him there was anything wrong with that. Doesn't first grade teach you about copying from others?

It absolutely galls me that people are attacking Mark and defending Trevor Marriott. People talk about the rot in this field all the time. Thanks for the reminder.

Now I am going to go read Cadosche.

But the motive is quite clear and relevant. The first book was self published in 2008. Before I became much more actively involved in Ripper research and before much of my highly contentious research came to the forefront.

Why did it take him 5 years to decide to carry out this exercise ? and what in 2012/13 prompted him to suddenly wake up one day and decide to carry out an extensive investigation into the book ?

Clearly as I have said as have others the hidden agenda was to try to discredit me as an individual which he and others would hope would affect my credibility etc and my work. This is clearly evident with the last part of the article where he makes a feeble attempt at trying to destroy the content of my Ripper presentation at Enfield.

It has done neither it has simply highlighted the lengths some will go to silence me and shows Mark Rippers actions to be obsessive, sad and pathetic. I did warn him that the lengths he had gone would come back to smack him in the face and I have been proved right. He has done himself no favours.

[Phil H]

I too think Mark did a superb job of demonstrating the point he makes. The position is made so clear that his case cannot be refuted without seeking to denigrate the man rather than the argument. It is an excellent article, every bit as important as the one that revealed the reality behind "Uncle Jack". Mark should ignore the negative responses and i am sure he will.

I do think we should be very careful about what we say on here. I suspect that Mr Marriott may well be entwined in some very serious and potentially costly (financially and personally) legal wrangling. I do not know what the penalties might be under copyright law if the case is pursued.To me, it seems obvious that the suspension of publishing of his promised new book is connected to the publishers being alerted to what happened in regard to the previous publication.

Personally (though I carry no brief for Mr Marriott and disagreed with him on almost everything) I am sad that someone who has published on JtR (and whom - irrespective of my not agreeing with his thesis - I think writes in a very readable way) should be so totally exposed in this way. This does our field no good at all and reinforces the perception that it is a subject without scholarship and tawdry). On readability, I am referring to his Ripper volume, which is the only one of his books I have read.

But Trevor is not here to respond to or counter any posts here. So I will say very little.

Suffice it to say that the exposure comes as no surprise to me. Nor his final responses. Then again, he must right now be in a very difficult place.

I await further developments with interest.

Phil

[Ally]

At first I thought I'd get away with being non-inflammatory on this topic, however this morning I wake up to find that on another site, Mark Ripper's character is being called into question for writing this piece. That's right, the general population appears to be remaining mum to the wholesale copyright and theft of intellectual property that a Ripper author we've all paid money to has engaged in. And yet the fringe finds time to call Mark into question for even daring to expose this blatant copyright infringement. I would respond there, but my account got deleted years ago, which is why I am responding here, mostly because, this trumpet the lunatic fringe is attempting to sound is blatantly ridiculous.

However, as it doesn't appear anyone over there has any desire to state the bleeding obvious, allow me.

What was Mark's motive? Totally irrelevant. Even if he lay awake dreaming of the day he could take Marriot down ( he didn't), it is entirely irrelevant to the intellectual property question that has been raised. Did Trevor Marriott blatantly and freely copy from over a dozen different people's work in a book that he accepted an advance of money and royalties from? Considering the sheer AMOUNT of "borrowing" that appears to have gone on, has he agreed to share his royalties with the people it appears actually did write a huge portion of his book?

People are claiming this is an attack "meant to drive Marriott away from the genre". Really? REALLY? He blatantly took intellectual property from another person without their consent or knowledge, published it in a book HE gets the money for while slapping his name on their work, and thinks because he listed them in the acknowledgement that makes it fair game? WHO is going to buy another book from him now knowing that? How would you feel if it had been YOU who had worked hard, published an article for peanuts and then found someone had taken it, without your knowledge and consent, slapped their name on it and accepted money for your work?

He claims the publishers didn't tell him there was anything wrong with that. Doesn't first grade teach you about copying from others?

It absolutely galls me that people are attacking Mark and defending Trevor Marriott. People talk about the rot in this field all the time. Thanks for the reminder.

Now I am going to go read Cadosche.

[Jenni Shelden]

Admin note: As we do not wish to overshadow all the other fine efforts of the people who contributed to Ripperologist 132 we have decided to move all discussion to this thread so that the debate may continue. To read the original topic that began this discussion, please go here.

Now that I have read the article I would also like to congratulate Mark Ripper on his very detailed, and very neutral, laying out of his case. The column format makes it fairly easy for the reader, easy except for the constant thud of getting hit over the head with the evidence. I thought I would have something quite inflammatory to say after reading it, but in the end, I am left just shaking my head in dumb disbelief at the absolute effrontery that's been exposed. Mark's closing statement was an absolute gem of understatement and insight.

quite right Ally, Mark has great integrity, it is a fine piece.

There is a spectra of great work in this issue, perhaps we should move the Marriott talk to its own thread to not mix this unearthing with others?

Jenni