Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[mariab]

Wow! You guys are starting to remind me of my colleagues , and of some conferences I've had the misfortune of attending. (I'm lamenting the bore/embarrassment factor over the fights of others here, not any fights of my own!) No wonder I've currently escaped to South Africa, where they are still too involved in sorting out the traumata of colonialism and of the apartheid, to dare fight about pettier things...
I promise I'll also read anything I find by Simon Wood too, although I have to say that after the experience of the debate in this thread I just hope he's managed to grasp the investigative procedurals in his articles?/his book?.
“Capisce?“, “ninnies“, “cyberbullies“, I just LOVE colorful language! Tom, you're starting to remind me of Spike (in BtVS). Is this a direct reference?! And I only thought that Brits said “ninnies“.
By the way, since we're showing off our muscles (on which I would absolutely win: surfer here!) and testosterone is flying around in the air, my own publications list is 3 pages long, I've just checked and I'm currently at 21 articles (with 7 of them still in preparation, stuck at the editor's or not having reached the editor yet), plus 3 books due (one manuscript I'm supposed to finish polishing in August, a translation of the same book in American-English planned for the near future, and another book in preparation, on which I should already start writing at some point in 2011 – if I'm still around by then.). So, to paraphrase Tom (albeit in American-English) “Eat that, p.....s. Now who's da man?“
By the way, and despite all the determined plans for future publications, I'm having the greatest difficulty motivating myself into having a look at my paper to be presented tomorrow, which needs timing and more cuts. (I have 30' min. at my disposition + 10' min. for questions, but from experience I know I should cut the 30' min. into 25', because things tend to get delayed, and it's too painful to decide which things to leave out when the clock is ticking.) But I fear that right now my most natural inclination is to research the succulent Pinotage I'm drinking right now in my room, which is a red wine created here in Stellenbosch by the cross-pollinating of Pinot Noir with another fine French grape. (Or so I learned today, and here speaketh the newbie again.) I'm also eating a pinotage sausage, for which I haven't totally grasped the process, but it tastes kinda sweet instead of salty. Plus every evening someone leaves a fresh decanter of local brandy in my room, and I feel very bad when I can't finish it all...

originally posted by mariab
“small-framed, old like the mountains, and with biggish ears“
Tom Wescott wrote:
Watch out for flying staplers from Stewart and Simon. Packer was 58.
Well, I was referring to 1888, when 58 was like 78 today. I think that today one should be considered youthful and able until at least 68. This considerably widens the gene pool too! As for the immaturity factor, it always stays on anyway, so I'm afraid age has nothing to do with it.
Now off to my paper (for real!!)

[Phil Carter]

....or else you'll find yourself going the way of Michael Richards. Congratulations, your attempt to piss me off has worked.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

Meaning what exactly?

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

1. It isn't paranoid Tom. That is YOUR description. I only hoped it wasn't what you were doing.

2. I use Ancestry in the course of genealogy research, and came across your name in conjunction with that. I wouldn't google you if I did have the time to do so, because I have far better things to do, so don't make assumptions.

3. Are you having problems understanding clear interpretation of the word respect Tom? Discussing PRIVATE conversation is WAY out of order..."We know who they are?"...really?..who is "we" Tom? and how do you get into my PRIVATE email account Tom to "know"? You had better have some damned good answers for this one.

4. Neither am I self righteous...just perhaps a little more respectful and clearly holding a far better understanding of public behaviour than the likes of your good self, it would appear.

respectfully

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Phil "

"but if Simon were to try and publish something calling White a liar and Packer a paragon of virture, he would not enjoy the same respect within the Ripper community that he now has."

Incidentally, Phil, this is a fact. IF Simon were to make this argument, only a handful of you ninnies would fall for it. The rest would roll their eyes. Having said that, I don't believe for a minute that Simon will EVER publish anything calling White a liar and Packer a paragon of virtue. So if you must be a cyberbully, please be so at the expense of someone who is actually guilty of the offenses you're publicly accusing them of, or else you'll find yourself going the way of Michael Richards. Congratulations, your attempt to piss me off has worked.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil,

Self-righteous much?

I do not know what Simon is writing, but I do know this...seemingly trying to fish out of another author what he or she has in mind in any projected publication, by wangling a tempting rebuttal to try to open his or her hand is most unproffessional. I sincerely hope you aren't trying to do that. Because that, Tom, is the very essence of disrespect towards another researcher, historian or writer.

I seriously doubt Simon is publishing anything on Packer. His lack of knowledge on the topic tells me it's not a particular area of interest for him. I was merely using him as an example because he's the one I'm going back and forth with at the moment. Where in the world you got the paranoid notion that I was trying to 'wangle' info out of him, I have no idea.

As you are a "writer" Tom, I respectfully, and keenly await the book you stated on Ancestry.com in 2001 the "book" you were "writing", when trying to track down relatives of certain people within families connected to the ones from 1888. Is this the same book you tell us you are currently writing?

You're googling me? That's not creepy at all. And yes, I'm writing a book. I've in the interim published about 15 essays, which in order to publish I first had to 'write', hence the term 'writer'. When my book comes out I will graduate to 'author'. Capiche?

Your Examiner No.2 piece has in the eyes of some holes in it.

Any suspect piece that does not provide definitive proof of the suspect's guilt has 'holes' in it. And that would be all of them. Your point?

As I have said, politely before, your efforts would be greatly enhanced if you spent less time attacking people and more on your excellent research.

My efforts are what they are. They'll speak for themselves. I'm not considered a crank in the Ripper community. And please don't bring up this ficticious group of people who are constantly PMing or e-mailing you, or so you claim. They don't exist. There's three of them and we know who they are. I might add you're the only one who thinks I've 'attacked' anybody, so if I ignore self-righteous insults from a minority of one, you'll please excuse me.

Now, if you'd like to actually ADD to our various discussions instead of playing referee, I'm sure we'd all be much obliged.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Research...and respect

.... but if Simon were to try and publish something calling White a liar and Packer a paragon of virture, he would not enjoy the same respect within the Ripper community that he now has.

Hello Tom,

I hope that was another example of your timeless wit and irony... because I would respectfully remind you that Simon Wood has been researching this far longer than most and has contributed far more than most of us have on the subject.
I do not know what Simon is writing, but I do know this...seemingly trying to fish out of another author what he or she has in mind in any projected publication, by wangling a tempting rebuttal to try to open his or her hand is most unproffessional. I sincerely hope you aren't trying to do that. Because that, Tom, is the very essence of disrespect towards another researcher, historian or writer.

As you are a "writer" Tom, I respectfully, and keenly await the book you stated on Ancestry.com in 2001 the "book" you were "writing", when trying to track down relatives of certain people within families connected to the ones from 1888. Is this the same book you tell us you are currently writing?

As I have said, politely before, your efforts would be greatly enhanced if you spent less time attacking people and more on your excellent research. You do yourself no favours. Your Examiner No.2 piece has in the eyes of some holes in it. I respectfully suggest you try repairing the holes with even better research instead of attacking respected researchers like Simon Wood.

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

small-framed, old like the mountains, and with biggish ears

Watch out for flying staplers from Stewart and Simon. Packer was 58.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

To Simon Wood:
I definitely don't “got it in“ with Packer, and I'll openly say that at the present state I don't have the slightest clue if he lied or not. I haven't read any of the articles on this yet (neither Examiner 2, nor the Ripper Notes, not even the sources posted on this thread by Stewart Evans yet!). The only things I know about Packer was what he looked like (i.e., small-framed, old like the mountains, and with biggish ears , from the numerous sketches of him), that he sold fruit, and that he changed his police statement. For everything else I have no opinion formed yet.
Terribly sorry for putting Eddowes at the wrong mortuary! (And I've wondered about that at the very moment I typed about her, he he!!) And I've also often wondered if Packer went to see Eddowes too, besides Stride (what a busy week he had! No doubt these were his “15 minutes of fame“, Victorian-style, I think Packer was the Cato Kaelin of 1888!), so thank you very much for corroborating this to me, Simon.

Tom Wescott wrote:
Stewart Evans might also be called a writer, although not nearly as distinguished.
Tom, I LOVE your sense of irony. Best of all though is the way the man himself signs his posts (“Treat me gently, I'm a newbie). I think I'll start signing my posts with “Philip Sudgen“. So at least people stop thinking I'm the late David Radka.

[Tom_Wescott]

Scott,

NO!

Maria,

Lord, I don't know why I quoted you there, I meant to quote Simon. LOL.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

“Yet once again you've failed to grasp the argument.“
Tom, Stewart Evans posted the above to Simon Wood, not me!
And I thought that everyone OVER 40 (OK, maybe everyone over 48) is a dirty lying bastard/indolent, clueless baby-boomer with an insipid sense of security and entitlment. (Yeah, I know, a lot of adjectives here...)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Maria,

Boy o boy, you've really got it in for Packer.

That there was more than one female corpse at the mortuary was merely a supposition to challenge Stewart's assumption that Stride was alone. We don't know, and it doesn't really matter. Packer identified Stride, and the Senior Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police recorded the fact.

When did it become a lie?

By the way, Eddowes was at a different mortuary–Golden Lane– which Packer visited on 3rd October.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Abby,

Simon is a writer, as am I. Stewart Evans might also be called a writer, although not nearly as distinguished. When writing history, we shouldn't feel we have the luxury to twist facts. To say White was lying without foundation, when we have indisputable proof of Packer lying numerous times, and to try to twist the argument in favor of Packer, would be an unforgivable offense by the writer.
It's not that big of a deal on a message board, where ideas are tried out, but if Simon were to try and publish something calling White a liar and Packer a paragon of virture, he would not enjoy the same respect within the Ripper community that he now has.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

Simon,

You're correct, I do know I'm correct in saying that Packer was lying. Swanson and Anderson knew they were right in saying that Packer was lying. Every respectable Ripper author has known he was right in saying that Packer was lying. I have a feeling you also know we're right. It's not open for debate.

Keep in mind that if you believe Packer really say a couple standing in the rain like he says, then you are saying he was lying to PS White. So we ALL agree that Packer was lying to someone. The rest comes down to irrefutable evidence and common sense. And I only assert myself in saying I'm correct when I know that I am. You on the other hand assert yourself when you have no evidence to back your point, or in situations such as on this thread, when you've down absolutely no research on the subject, but stubbornly persist in your flawed view, even after having been proved wrong.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

"Keep in mind that if you believe Packer really say a couple standing in the rain like he says, then you are saying he was lying to PS White. So we ALL agree that Packer was lying to someone."

Unless he was telling the truth and White never questioned him (in which case White lied about questioning him). It really comes down to who you beleive and i think that all things considered a reasonable person would conclude (IMHO with all due respect and so forth) that Packer was full of ****.

[Scott Nelson]

They are, aren't they?

[Tom_Wescott]

Yet once again you've failed to grasp the argument.

This is called projecting, Simon. I don't have everyone from the newbies to the best selling authors repeatedly explaining themselves to me because I'm missing the point. That's you, good sir. I get the impression you think everyone under 40 is an idiot.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott