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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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=Phil H;264374]

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.

Yep. He's got more class in his little finger than I possess in my entire body.

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

Phil

So it is clear, Trevor was allowed back to the site last week after speaking briefly with myself and after I ran it by Stephen Ryder. This was prior to the article coming out and prior to any allegations made. I would not have made any comments had I not known that he was able to freely respond should he choose to do so.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Ally;264378]

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



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.

As far as I am concerned and was concerned the acknowledgment at the front of the book clearly allows for any writer who feels that their copyright has been infringed were invited to contact the publisher. In the first book that referred to contacting me direct.

I think this whole issue is being blown up out of all proportion after all the whole book is not copied.

As to the book itself it is a compilation of known serial killers whose crimes are widely known and recorded for all to see quite openly on the web. The material content from the writers articles must have come from official police files newspaper and television reports.

So all the original writers have done in my view is gathered all of that together and added their own words to it to make up their articles so in effect it could be argued that all they have done is taken someone else material and used it in their articles. Because I doubt many would have been directly involved in the cases.

Lets face it there are only so many ways you can write "A lured B to country lane and shot him three times through the head"etc etc.

Like I said maybe I was naïeve with regards to copyright issues way back in 2008.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Hi Phil
Its not about attacking my critics its defending my actions and putting them in the correct perspective. But his actions motives and his obsession certainly need attacking.

At no time have I said or written that the book was all my own work. I readily acknowledged the other writers. In high insight maybe I should have linked them to the articles but that was in 2008 and I was naïve to copyrighting etc.

The actions of Mark Ripper and the lengths he has gone to clearly show an agenda. That being to discredit me. After all the book had been out since 2008.

By his own admissions he sits in a theatre hastily writing down everything I say during my 2 hour talk and uses it in the article. What has my talk got to do with the book issue? He passes adverse comments and criticisms about almost every part of the talk. But that is to be expected from one who want to prop up the old outdated theories and that doesn't bother me now.

So why 5 years later does he go on a mission which took months and no doubt he spent a lot of his own money. No one does that as a exercise without a motive and an objective. Certainly not just to prove someone used someone elses words in a book.

The man is sad he needs to take a look at himself and his life and I will tell him so face to face if we ever meet.

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;264383]

So all the original writers have done in my view is gathered all of that together and added their own words to it to make up their articles so in effect it could be argued that all they have done is taken someone else material and used it in their articles. Because I doubt many would have been directly involved in the cases.

Professionals take information and formulate new theses. They quote other sources to support their theses and by doing so, show the reader that these sources are valuable to the writer as pioneers and as supporting evidence. This is how non-fictional writing works. It's academic and it's respectful, and it's the understood method.

Mike

[Ally]

I realize this is to Phil, but I felt compelled to respond anyway.

The actions of Mark Ripper and the lengths he has gone to clearly show an agenda. That being to discredit me. After all the book had been out since 2008.

The book was re-published in 2013. Which means it's subject to review just like any book published. I imagine he did have an agenda. It's called book review and investigative journalism.

By his own admissions he sits in a theatre hastily writing down everything I say during my 2 hour talk and uses it in the article. What has my talk got to do with the book issue? He passes adverse comments and criticisms about almost every part of the talk. But that is to be expected from one who want to prop up the old outdated theories and that doesn't bother me now.

You seem to be under a misapprehension that what you do or say has no bearing on anything. You are putting yourself out there as a researcher and publishing in the field of non-fiction. That means you need credibility and integrity that is not required of a fiction writer. Your work stands or falls on your own credibility. It is not outside the bounds to investigate the man, otherwise, you wouldn't be trying so hard to discredit Mark. I mean, why would you be trying so hard to paint him as a person with an agenda if you didn't thoroughly recognize that a person's integrity and credibility were central to how well their work is received.

You seem to understand that in regard to others but fail to see how it applies to you.

So why 5 years later does he go on a mission which took months and no doubt he spent a lot of his own money. No one does that as a exercise without a motive and an objective. Certainly not just to prove someone used someone elses words in a book.

Yes indeed, because plagiarism isn't a serious issue in academia. You attempt to minimize it with statements like "used someone elses words in a book". That's called plagiarism. It's a serious charge and a serious offense in the world of academia. It's actionable. It's not some reduced little thing of no consequence. People have lost their jobs and their entire careers for less "borrowing" than has been demonstrated in one chapter of your book. It's not a little thing to people who take research and academia seriously. It's not a little thing to the people who didn't get paid a book advance for their work which you used.

The man is sad he needs to take a look at himself and his life and I will tell him so face to face if we ever meet.

Mark is a gentleman and a scholar. Tearing him down to discredit him is not the way to go on this. Attempting to paint him as a member of some cabal is not the way to go on this. There are many, many people I would say you had a fair beef about if they had been the ones to write this. There are many people I would say, well yes, they DID have an agenda (though that's still irrelevant as I have said before, what matters is did they find anything verifiable). Mark is not one of those people. Do I think there are people all over dancing a jig and doing a "Let's buy him a beer" routine? Absolutely.

Is that at all relevant to what's being discussed? No.

[Supe]

Trev,

Like I said maybe I was naïeve with regards to copyright issues way back in 2008.

You confuse the issue by harping on the copyright business and how you didn't understand the law (and, as a former policeman, you do know ignorance of the law is no excuse). By taking large pieces of prose from other writers and using it verbatim -- without attribution or compensation -- you committed plagiarism and that is clearly unethical behavior that is inexcusable. And the fact that you did not put the stolen words in quotation marks indicates that you did wish to pass them off as your own.

For shame!

Don.

[Phil H]

I stand by the point I made in my previous post, Trevor - answer the allegations point by point.

Go for the ball, not the man.

I think the article would have stood and been as strong without the piece about your talk, but it was not irrelevant - far from it. Read it again and try to see the point being made. Everyone seems to be culpable but you?

I fully support the points being made by Ally and Don which I could not have expressed better.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

I stand by the point I made in my previous post, Trevor - answer the allegations point by point.

Go for the ball, not the man.

I think the article would have stood and been as strong without the piece about your talk, but it was not irrelevant - far from it. Read it again and try to see the point being made. Everyone seems to be culpable but you?

I fully support the points being made by Ally and Don which I could not have expressed better.

Phil

Phil

I have set out and given my explanation's etc. Those were given to Mark Ripper when he contacted me. I can add no more on here or anywhere else for that matter.

In the past 24 hours I have answered all that has been put before me I have nothing further to say on the topic. I do not intend to be subjected to a public inquisition by those who would seek to discredit me like Mark Ripper has done.

As far as I am concerned the matter is closed.

[Phil H]

Alas, Trevor, I doubt whether it is as easy as that.

Phil