Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripperologist Magazine #169 - July 2021

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Apparently Chris has written a true crime book called Hanged For The Word ‘If.’ Has anyone read it?
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

    Comment


    • #32
      Great tribute to Robert Linford btw
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
        It's sad when a poster makes a big show of leaving because of claimed poor quality ripper research, posts on a thread about superb research by Pat and Chris without even bothering to congratulate them. Instead trying to turning thread into posts all about themselves. Would it have hurt you so much, to take a few seconds off your time to acknowledge Pat and Chris's effort, Christer?
        youve got to be joking. what obligation does fish have to comment on some other article in the magaizine, no matter how excellent it is? hes commenting in response to a book review on his freaken book for crying out loud.and its a thread about the latest issue of ripperologist not just about Pat and chris article. and i agree with fish that els past history with fish and his theory, the well known contentiousness and disagreements theyve had over the years, really should have precluded him for being the one to have written the review. i mean el has written a book (which is stellar-ihave a ton of respect for el) mainly in part to refute fishs lech theory. turn it around-it would be like fish writing the review for that book! lol. cmon people would hit the roof.

        no whats sad strange is your cheap shot at fish with your post. sure fish gives as good as he takes, but the personal attacks on fish by people who disagree with his theory as exemplified by your post should make it clear to everyone that many of fishes critics seem to be as much against fish as to his theory.
        Last edited by Abby Normal; 08-01-2021, 09:25 PM.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • #34
          Other than you, nobody wrote or suggested he had an obligation, certainly not me. Now, would you like to talk about anything else in the magazine? I thought it was a great issue.
          dustymiller
          aka drstrange

          Comment


          • #35
            Okay. I know I said I am taking a break from Casebook, but my reason for doing so was decidedly not to offer up space for the kind of hapless stuff that is quoted in green below!

            For some reason, Dusty (drstrange169) transferred the debate over to another thread, wheras this is where it belongs. And so I am bringing it back here.

            Dusty makes a few claims on account of Steve Blomer here, and I would be interested to know if what he says has represents Steves view. I sincerely hope not, although I would not exclude the possibility in any way.

            The claims made are basically saying that Steve was correct in what he said in his review, whereas I was wrong in my post about it.

            Dusty does not bring up a number of matters, like for example how Steve said that it was "dodgy" of me not to disclose how Lechmere said that Paul thought that Nichols was dead. After having proven that I did so on more than one occasion in the book, it is understandable that Dusty does not mention it.

            Now, let us take a look at what he DOES bring up! It is about:

            1. How I would have claimed to know how far away from Lechmere Paul was when he first saw his fellow carman although such a thing is supposedly impossible to do, and

            2. How I would have substituted the facts for "pure imagination" when I wrote that Paul suggested that the two carmen should try to resuscitate Nichols by propping her up.

            I will do this in two ways, the serious way and Dusty´s way (a not serious way). And I will arrive at a very important question at the end of my reasoning.

            So, here goes - the serious answer:

            Dusty quotes how I say "Here is the corroborated version..." and he then moves on to tell us how a dictionary (I will take him up on that practive later on in my post) defines the word "corroborated". He then goes on to say that since I have used the word "corroborated", anything I say afterwards must be proven facts. And then he tells me that it is NOT a proven fact that Paul noticed Lechmere when the former had passed around a hundred yards (although Dusty writes "years") down Bucks Row.

            Let´s begin by looking at the context in which I use the word "corroborated". I write that it is important to keep in mind that anything Lechmere says about the proceedings BEFORE Paul arrived has no corroboration. To me, this is a vital fact to establish, because the picture of what happened at the pre-Paul stage has always been shaped by Lechmere and Lechmere alone. Meaning that he may have lied. Once Paul arrived at the scene, this opportunity was no longer open to Lechmere - or Paul for that matter. We instead had a situation where the carmen were able to corroborate what the other man said. This was what I was pointing to, but Dusty now turns it into a demand for absolute truth in whatever I wrote in the book.

            So how do I bolster my take about when Paul saw Lechmere? Well, I of course ground it very much on how it was very dark in the street. From around twenty yards away, Lechmere thought that Nichols was a tarpaulin. Meaning that Paul was not likely to be able to see Lechmere from far away.

            There is also the fact that Paul said that he saw a man STANDING where the body was in the Lloyds article, alternatively standing in the middle of the road in inquest paper reports. Nowhere does he say that Lechmere was moving as he saw him. This means that he saw Lechmere as the latter was standing still in the middle of the street, on his way over to Nichols. Lechmere made such a stop, but it was only a very short one, as per the Morning Advertiser: "...on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come..."
            Ergo, if Paul saw Lechmere standing still in the middle of the road, then there is only one occasion when this could have happened: When Lechmere first noted Paul. And Lechmere described the distance Paul was at when this happened as thirty or forty yards away. The distance from Brady Street down to the murder spot was 130-140 yards. And so, we must conclude that Paul saw Lechmere as he had walked around a hundred yards or so down Bucks Row.

            This is as watertight as we will be able to establish the distance Paul was from Lechmere when he saw his fellow carman.

            Therefore, what I wrote is not "pure imagination". It is instead an astute observation based on the facts.

            That was the serious answer. Now lets turn to the Dusty method, the less serious one:

            I never wrote that Paul FIRST noticed Lechmere as he had walked a hundred yards down Bucks Row, did I? I wrote, and I quote:

            "When he had walked about a hundred yards down Buck´s Row, making his trek on its northern pavement, he noticed a man standing in the street."

            Now, the murder site was around 130-140 yards from Brady Street, and that is around a hundred yards. Are you saying, Dusty, that Paul did NOT see Charles Lechmere as he approached the murder site? He may of course have seen Lechmere from 110 yards away, 90 yards away, 70 yards away and so on, but this we don´t now. But we DO know that Paul saw Lechmere at the murder site. Or are you denying that?

            This is the Dusty method. Apologies to those of you who cannot stomach reading this kind of stuff. If, like me, you find it a good laugh instead, then you are most welcome.

            Now that we have shredded this first "point" of Dusty´s, let´s move on to the next. And now we will turn to the dictionaries again. This time, we will ask what "resuscitate" means. The Cambride Dictionary tells us that it means:

            "to bring someone who is dying back to life, wake someone who is unconscious, or bring something back into use or existence"

            Since Dusty likes Merriam Webster, I´ll thrown that in too, for good measure:

            "to revive from apparent death or from unconsciousness"

            So it is about bringing somebody back. What Dusty says in his post is that we have no record of any such intention on Pauls behalf, and therefore my wording in the book is - once again - pure invention.

            The question I must ask here is this: If Pauls aim was NOT to try and bring Nichols back, then whatever else could it have been? To clear the pavement for the benefit of passers-by? Did Paul find sitting women more easy on the eye than women lying down? I would suggest that the ONLY reason Paul could have had for asking Lechmere to help prop Nichols up would have been to try and bring her around again. And until any other explanation can be given for it, that must stand.

            And so ends Dusty´s challenge. In misery. And - but for one matter - it may perhaps be finally possible for me to take that break I want from Casebook. But what is that matter I speak about? It is of course the very important question I hinted at in the beginning of my post. And that question goes like this:

            If Dusty´s post mirrors Steves take on things (and I would like to have that answered, please!), then how justified was it to call Cutting Point based on "pure imagination" when it comes to these matters? Are they or are they not enough to condemn a book as having been dreamt up only in important passages?

            Is this the kind of reviewing we want? Is it the kind of judgment we need to have passed over us? Is this the kind of "insights" we should base pissing on a writers credibility on?

            Or is it as shameful exercise as anybody is ever going to see in the reviewing field?

            You tell me.

            To Dusty, with the best of intentions: If this is the kind of help you have for Steve, then for Gods sake, don´t provide it. As I said before, you do a lot more damage than good, and if that is not your intention, you really should not do it.

            I´m off. Again. With any luck, I will not need to return in the near future.


            Over on the Ripperologist Magazine #169 - July 2021 thread

            (
            https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-169-july-2021)

            Christer made some claims that Steve Blomer’s review of his book “Cutting Point” in that issue, were factually in correct. Rather than dominate yet another thread with all things Lechmere, I've brought my reply over here.

            In said review, Steve wrote,

            “Some of it is pure imagination, such as his claim that Robert Paul was a hundred yards or more from Lechmere when he first became aware of him.”

            Christer countered,

            “You (Steve Blomer) write that I state "pure imagination" as fact when saying that Robert Paul was a hundred yards or more away from Lechmere when the latter first became aware of his presence. What I say is that this is a possibility, but I also point out how there are of course other possibilities. I do not claim any of them as a factually proven distance, so I am a bit flummoxed when you say that I do.”

            So is Christer complaint correct?

            On page 63 of “Cutting Point” with regards to Paul meeting Cross he wrote,

            “Here is the corroborated version …”

            The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "corroborate" thus,

            Corroborate - to support with evidence or authority : make more certain.

            So when Christer claimed (page 64 Cutting Point),

            “When he (Paul) had walked about a hundred years down Buck’s Row”

            He was NOT “say(ing) is that this is a possibility” nor was he “also point(ing) out how there are of course other possibilities”. It is therefore legitimate for a reader to believe meant it as a “factually proven distance”.

            Who corroborated this distance? Not Lechmere, he couldn’t possibly know. Not Paul, as nowhere, in either his Lloyds interview nor his reported witness testimony, does he say where he was when he first saw Cross.

            Conclusion one: Steve Blomer was justified in using the term “pure imagination" in regards to Christer’s allegedly corroborated claim.

            Conclusion two: Christer has no justification in claiming it.

            Conclusion three: There is no claim by Paul of where he was when he first saw Cross and there is not and cannot be any corroboration of a false claim.


            Is there anything else in this passage on page 64 that could be described as “pure imagination”?
            Two thirds of the way down page 64 of "Cutting Point" and still within Christer's defined category of corroborated evidence is this sentence,

            “ In order to try and resuscitate her, Robert Paul now suggested that they should prop her up”

            Nowhere in anybody’s testimony is the claim of resuscitating her made let alone corroborated.

            In fact, even the claim that Paul wanted to sit her up is not corroborated, as only Cross made that claim.

            Conclusion four: the use of the word resuscitation can jus=tifibly described as "pure imagination".

            Conclusion five: The story of Paul wanting to move Mrs. Nichols is not corroborated
            The above are, but two examples which justify Steve Blomer’s review.

            I think the point is made but, I’m happy to supply more.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
              We really don't want rebuttal on top of rebuttal, on top of rebuttal as you say.

              If for no other reason that Christer and I are unlikely to reach a concesus.

              At the end of the day, it's down to the readers.

              Steve
              I’d be happy if it was left at that.

              JM

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by jmenges View Post

                I’d be happy if it was left at that.

                JM
                Ditto!

                Comment


                • #38
                  This is an excellent magazine! Excellent work! Thank you jmenges fro the very quick response in getting me set up.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    For some reason, Dusty (drstrange169) transferred the debate over to another thread, wheras this is where it belongs. And so I am bringing it back here.
                    drstrange169 transferred the debate over to another thread because the moderator asked everyone to do that in Post #12.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post


                      The 'subscribe' button doesn't work.

                      I was subscribed under a different email before they stopped being published.

                      So, how do I get nos. 167 & 168?
                      Oh, it seemed to work for me? I was able to download 160, which the web-page showed as the current issue, but pretty sure I subscribed after 169 was mailed out. I can also access the back issues (the most recent zip looking like it's from 151-166). However, now I'm not sure if being able to do those is because I have successfully subscribed to the mailing list or not?

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        If you subscribed after #169 came out your subscription will start with issue #170.
                        PM me your email and I’ll send you #169.

                        Also there may be some of you who used to subscribe but find yourself no longer receiving it.
                        Around the time of Rip 160/161 (Summer 2018) we were required to send all subscribers an email asking you to confirm your subscription so that the magazine is compliant with the UK’s new General Data Protection Regulations. If you didn’t confirm your subscription we were required by law to drop you from the list. You’ll have to resubscribe.

                        JM

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by jmenges View Post
                          If you subscribed after #169 came out your subscription will start with issue #170.
                          PM me your email and I’ll send you #169.

                          Also there may be some of you who used to subscribe but find yourself no longer receiving it.
                          Around the time of Rip 160/161 (Summer 2018) we were required to send all subscribers an email asking you to confirm your subscription so that the magazine is compliant with the UK’s new General Data Protection Regulations. If you didn’t confirm your subscription we were required by law to drop you from the list. You’ll have to resubscribe.

                          JM
                          Brilliant! Done.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Being an old fashioned guy, I print mine out.

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1909.jpeg
Views:	266
Size:	186.1 KB
ID:	764380
                            dustymiller
                            aka drstrange

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                              Being an old fashioned guy, I print mine out.

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_1909.jpeg
Views:	266
Size:	186.1 KB
ID:	764380
                              That’s impressive. Very nice library.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                Oh, it seemed to work for me? .....
                                - Jeff
                                It changed colour when I clicked on it, but then what?
                                Nothing happened, I clicked again, and again.
                                All the little window does is change colour.

                                I didn't get an email, nothing downloaded from anywhere.

                                How do you know it worked?
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X