Casebook Examiner Number 5

[mariab]

Hello Corey, no problem at all, and in Berlin it's deep snow up to the knees. It's beautiful. Incidentally I rode the pow on Fichtelberg (which is a hill at the Tcheck border, not too far from Dresden) all Sunday, after having slept just 2 hours in my friends' car Saturday night. We drove 12 hours round trip to ride for...6 hours? Like, 70% driving for 30% riding. We're definitely suckers in our addiction. (I would have loved to have stayed a few nights, but my friends had to run their shop, esp. pre-Xmas time.)
Many apologies for the digression, but I'm NUTS about snow, just can't control myself...

[KatBradshaw]

Is there a woman who is not vulnerable?

I have one word to say to this, Ally!

[Tom_Wescott]

It is absolutely dead at my work, so I was able to finish reading CE5 in full. I greatly enjoy Don's insights on detective fiction, since I'm nowhere near as well-versed in this as he or many other Casebookers. However, I was shocked at his rant against Holmes pastiches. Of course, many are crappy, but I've enjoyed a few.

I also enjoyed all the reviews. I actually read the first edition of one of the books Jen reviewed, so it was neat to see it there. However, I must strongly disagree with Neal's positive review of the depressing 'Wolfman' remake. The best scenes were the ones taken out of the film and featured on the 'deleted scenes'!

I enjoyed reading that Jeff Leahy will be appearing in his own documentary playing a door...the door to Mary Kelly's room, to be precise. I can only imagine the number of people who would have lined up to play McCarthy with the pick axe.

It bordered on hilarious to read John Bennett sharing Paul Begg's deep concern that Kosminski might be unfairly promoted in their 'unbiased' documentary.

Rob Clack once again comes through well with a Casebook trawl on Elizabeth Jackson and some nifty pics. I see he'll be looking at Matthew Packer next. Can't wait to see how that comes out.

Casebook Examiner #6 will not feature anything by me, therefore won't be as good as most of the issues to date, but from what I've heard will still be an amazing issue, so if you haven't subscribed yet, you should stop being a cheap bastard.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Originally Posted by Tom_Wescott
Is there a woman who is not vulnerable?
Kate Bradshaw wrote:
I have one word to say to this, Ally!
Ally is stuck with the often thorny task of babysitting the boards, so she often has to act like a stern disciplinarian.

I hope Tom meant this in a chivalrous way more than out of insecurity.
As for being “vulnerable“, as a “female“, what can I say? The one thing I feel very vulnerable about is the bad economy (which most certainly is not gender-related), but I have a few skills which would enable me to find all kinds of different temp jobs, if I end up not further making it in academia. Or I might choose to get a skibum job waiting tables, riding the hill and the snowpark every day, which would probably keep me much more fulfilled than all the jobs and honours in the world.
As for physically vulnerable, it's so CUTE the way guys see us. For your information, Tom, I'm the gal who spotted a broken middle finger with a black top thick as a lollipop after ragdolling the hill for 600m, but directly went and jumped a couple of 180s°, because it felt too boring to stop. And only quit riding for the day because the nose of my board was deeply split and I wanted to prevent further damage to the board before it got repaired. And I'm the chick who spotted a bleeding nose and shiner attempting windsurfing jumps, went out of the water attracted by the smell of fresh brownies, was seen eating a fresh brownie in one hand while pressing an ice cube against my bleeding face with the other hand, and after wolfing down 3 brownies went back into the water and kept going at it, smashed face and all.
Actually, my very first thought of a comeback when I saw Tom's “Is there a woman who's not vulnerable?“ yesterday was “To your charms, you hope?“. But I didn't feel like teasing Tom, for once, I felt like being nice to him. Pfff...

[Fi Saint]

Hello Tom,

I would still very much like to discuss your article - I did post a couple of comments to you a while back, but I think they got rained off.

I'm very glad to learn about Dowson; am currently reading his unpublished first novel online, A Comedy of Masks, which is distinctly autobiographical and includes two main characters who must be Sickert and Whistler. If you've got nothing to do you at work you might like to have a look.

http://manybooks.net/titles/dowsoner1670316703-8.html

All the best,
Fiona

[Fi Saint]

Hi Maria,

Did you do all that on Sunday??

Fi

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fiona,

Did I miss a post from you? I'm sorry, that's entirely possible since I only access the internet at work and am often busy. I miss more than I see.

Kat and Maria,

Oh, Ally has her vulnerabilities. Try bagging on Spry and see what happens. Also, people she supposedly bans from the boards show up posting on the boards complaining about their banning and how Ally is omnipotent, which raises the question - if Ally is omnipotent and an habitual banner, how is everyone able to post about their banning? So my conclusion is that Ally has a weakness for banned posters.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Fi Saint wrote:
Did you do all that on Sunday??
Good one! Sunday was injury-free. Still, for the Berner Street specialists among you, biggish black bruises appeared out of nowhere about 36 hours after the act. Or at least, that's when I noticed them, while showering. Possibly they appeared while I was asleep, which is a bit similar to peri-mortem?

Tom Wescott wrote:
I enjoyed reading that Jeff Leahy will be appearing in his own documentary playing a door...the door to Mary Kelly's room, to be precise. I can only imagine the number of people who would have lined up to play McCarthy with the pick axe.
Cute. It possibly beats Lynn Cates' Stride reenactement, where he attempts to murder his own wife, posted as a YouTube in his eponymous casebook thread.
I hope to manage to read Examiner 5 at least during January...

[mariab]

Tom Wescott wrote:
Also, people she supposedly bans from the boards show up posting on the boards complaining about their banning and how Ally is omnipotent, which raises the question - if Ally is omnipotent and an habitual banner, how is everyone able to post about their banning? So my conclusion is that Ally has a weakness for banned posters.
Actually these were my very thoughts when perusing old (very entertaining) casebook threads (instead of doing my assignments).

[Fi Saint]

Tom:

Dowson's friend Robert Sherard (you mentioned it was at his house in Catford that Dowson died) was in 1888 technically a Lipski. He had married a Polish woman called Marthe Lipska in 1887 - since he himself had dropped his family name of Kennedy, it is conceivable that he was using her name. The male version of Lipska is Lipski.

Maria:

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Best,
Fiona

[mariab]

Fi Saint:
Maria:
I have no idea what you're talking about.
No worries, Fiona, you're in the best company. It has happened before, and to the best of them. ;-)

[caz]

Corey's a star

Ally is stuck with the often thorny task of babysitting the boards, so she often has to act like a stern disciplinarian.

Is that right, Maria? I thought Ally took off her official moderator's hat a long while ago, along with the power to do anything but dish out verbal slaps when the mood takes her. But what do I know?

Anyway, after fighting my way through your hectic but invulnerable social life (presumably all done with one hand while the other one types - no wonder you haven't started Examiner 5 yet, the topic of this thread - hint hint), I would like to say something about Part One of Corey's article - if I can get a word in.

I have yet to read Part Two, but that won't be before Christmas now. So I just had to pop in to tell Corey how much I admired his outstandingly good analysis of the Whitechapel Murders, and his exceptional insight into human behaviour, as applied to one man's likely murder progression from Tabram to Kelly.

I am now, more than ever, able to see Tabram belonging with the C5, and less able to see a second or third killer 'slotting in' at any point without completely ruining the effect of Corey's perfectly observed behavioural progression. I doubt that even a deliberate attempt by a different hand to mimic a previous murder could have escaped Corey's notice. Not so easy to mimic a progression, is it? Even harder in mid-progression. It would still have stuck out from the rest.

If each occasion had presented the killer with identical external circumstances, I'm quite sure his natural progression would have stood out even more like a sore thumb - but then nothing else would have been natural. Some things were always going to be partially or entirely beyond his control, giving him a new set of challenges at every turn and affecting how he might otherwise have behaved. These external challenges, without even factoring in his internally evolving needs and fantasies, would have resulted in no two attacks looking alike, and sooner or later one that would look quite different.

So for me, Stride is all too easily accounted for by chance alone. I would absolutely expect at least one in six murders, if by the same hand, to present the killer with a significant challenge; something that would impede his natural progress to an observable degree. He wasn't Superman, his victims were not identical and nor were the backdrops to the killings.

Corey, you are a bright new star. Keep up the great work.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Bennett]

I enjoyed reading that Jeff Leahy will be appearing in his own documentary playing a door...the door to Mary Kelly's room, to be precise. I can only imagine the number of people who would have lined up to play McCarthy with the pick axe.

It bordered on hilarious to read John Bennett sharing Paul Begg's deep concern that Kosminski might be unfairly promoted in their 'unbiased' documentary.

Aw, Tom, you're all heart.

[corey123]

Hello Caz,

Thank you so much for the kind words. I am glad you liked part-one of the essay, which was very fun to write about. I plan to write a Darker side of Evolutrion-two also, if research is abundant.

This little evolution, victimology, relationship to the result of their actions into their next murder is how many law enforcement agencies these days find victims out of serial cases. At least I think it does. It is still in the "theory stage" but I believe it proves true in this case, at least. Anyhow, it is a great tool that cannot be mimiced, as you pointed out.

Caz, I would like you to read this paragraph from Dr. David Canters Criminal Shadows

Even the darkest human evil has a pattern. Whatever the attack, it contains themes, recurring elements, dominant characteristics, and identifiable structures. A violent criminal’s shadows flicker and change, but only they are identifiably his.

Interesting isn't it?

Again thanks for the kind words.

Have a merry Christmas,

Corey

[Tom_Wescott]

Aw, Tom, you're all heart.

You know I've got nothing but love for Begg and Leahy, and you're everyone's favorite docuwhore. LOL. You're to film what Frogg Moody is to stage. And I think that's a compliment. And be nice as I'm the only one who read your interview. I'm anxiously awaiting your doc and I know for a fact that many others are as well. It will be the first Ripper doc I've purchased in years.

In all seriousness, congrats on your seemingly endless stream of achievements.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott