Ripperologist 113

[Adam Went]

G'day Hunter!

I reckon that pretty much answers that, eh? LOL. Yes, I am Australian, and no, we don't ride kangaroos around town.....

Good to see Cap'n Jack resurface here....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

Cap'n Jack goes by the alias A.P. Wolf but just who are the Yankee dollar bitches in this case is best left to his febrile imagination. Like most cranks, he is best ignored.

You're probably right, but when I saw his post I couldn't resist making a facetious comment.

[Hunter]

I believe Adam is from Australia.
Ain't that right, mate?

A.P.- The Yankee dollar is getting worth less and less these days. Ain't gonna be worth the paper its printed on at the rate it is being printed. I've been saving Confederate money. At least it has collectors' value.

Schutz/ Shitz... it all sounds like a cheap beer or a colon disorder.

Or, maybe its a cheap beer that gives you a colon disorder.

[Supe]

Grave one,

Oh, lighten up, Don.

I do try, but while A.P. can at times be sprightly in his postings it is the repetition of the same old drivel (e.g. the Yankee dollar blather) and the professional contraire posturing that places him in the crank class for me.

Don.

[The Grave Maurice]

Oh, lighten up, Don. The Cap'n is one of the most interesting characters in this game. I thoroughly enjoyed his contributions to Non-Con podcast last summer. Although, I must agree that I'd be happier if he would, on occasion, temper his language.

[Supe]

Chris,

Cap'n Jack goes by the alias A.P. Wolf but just who are the Yankee dollar bitches in this case is best left to his febrile imagination. Like most cranks, he is best ignored.

Don.

[Chris]

JM

Please can you put "Cap'n Jack" (whoever he is) on your list for a "one-to-one" (whatever that means)?

[Cap'n Jack]

Personally I just love it when you yankee dollar bitches fall out wiv one another. Fair play to the lot of ya.
I'd rather suck on a pipe of shutz but each to their own, eh?

[Adam Went]

Don:

Just incase you didn't get it or haven't already replied (haven't checked yet), I sent you an e-mail yesterday.....

JM:

And I would love to appear on a podcast. Tom?

Cheers,
Adam.

[jmenges]

I'd also welcome you both on a podcast.

JM

[Supe]

Adam,

On the contrary, I will be happy to do so.

Should you like to take issue with anything in Tom's article in Casebook Examiner #1, the letters pages of Examiner #2 are open to you. And that goes for anyone else who wishes to say anything about Tom's article or those of R.J. Palmer, Neal Shelden or David Gates.

Nice thing about a letter to the editor, as opposed to "real-time" sniping on a message board, is that each individual has sufficient time to marshall cogent arguments in contrast to the oft-felt need to answer one post after another in an overly hasty fashion.

Don.

[Adam Went]

Monty:

OK, thanks for clearing that up. And I do agree with what you say, actually.

Tom:

Adam, I'm shocked to see you behaving like this. We both decided that we'd each critique the other's essay upon publication. You're welcome to correct any errors I made by writing a letter to Casebook Examiner. I welcome the opportunity to improve my knowledge.

Yes, indeed we did, and I have already provided comments and thoughts on your article elsewhere, as I said I would do. I was never made aware of the fact that you intended to make it a slinging match via monthly issues of a magazine. I was expecting a critique and commentary on the relevant threads about the article, as I did for you, and yet it hasn't materialised....

And why is that? There are two different press accounts of Mortimer, one well-detailed that fits with everything else, and then the one you have latched on to apparently to discredit Mortimer...for what purpose I don't know.

This whole 10 minute gap thing is a MYTH. An absolute, utter, contrived MYTH. Nothing short of that. However, I am looking forward to seeing your version of it.....as it turns out, I will get to see your response after all, and will gladly offer my own rebuttal.

I tried to avoid all this on the forums by literally handing you my research. You didn't call me a twat then. You chose not to use it and published your essay, mistakes and omissions in tact. My sharing information with you was done out of friendship.

Tom, you and I both know that isn't accurate. You didn't even know I was writing an article, for a start. I'm not getting into a "he said, she said" argument over it, it's just not accurate - nice attempt at the whole "I'm the good guy in all of this" though.

Hi tnb. You're right, it is getting far too personal. Fortunately, the majority of Ripperologist's contributors do not call you a 'twat' if you comment on or critique their work. This is part of the reason why I wanted to debate the case in the pages of the magazine, but clearly Adam does not want to due to the fact that it would have to remain civilized.

On the contrary, I will be happy to do so.
As for "twat"....take a look at what you've said to me! Accusations of not caring about history, deliberately avoiding facts, etc....things that cut pretty deep for someone who does take their research seriously. "Twat" is minor in comparison.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi tnb. You're right, it is getting far too personal. Fortunately, the majority of Ripperologist's contributors do not call you a 'twat' if you comment on or critique their work. This is part of the reason why I wanted to debate the case in the pages of the magazine, but clearly Adam does not want to due to the fact that it would have to remain civilized.

Regarding Best and Gardner, their man had a tall hat, whereas Marshall's man did not. Best/Gardner got a prolonged look at their couple, as did Marshall, and there's absolutely no way either party could have mistaken the man's hat in such a way. It would be like looking at a Lexus for 10 minutes and describing it the next day as a Volkswagen. This discrepancy is too strong to be written off, and the idea that the man changed hats just isn't feasible enough, so in my mind the only viable conclusion is that Marshall saw Stride with a different man than did Best and Gardner.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[tnb]

Tom,

Fair enough-thought so, hence the *another*- I did have my suspicions who the other Trevor may be. Still thought I'd better check. Put it down to a stressful week! As I say, I am staying out of this now as it seems to be getting 1) a little personal and thus not for me to butt in, and 2) a little over my head! Should you wish to enlighten me as to the reason my best/gardner and marshall theory cannot be plausible or any other element of my earlier post, feel free to PM me.

Trevor (t'other one)

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi tnb. I was talking about Trevor Marriott. That's why I usually call you tnb.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott