Cliques and cartels in Ripperology

[Natalie Severn]

AP wasn"t particularly "anti-Anderson"----far more "anti-Charles Cutbush" or "uncle Charles" as he called him.AP is a brilliant, humorous, hugely talented writer and satirist and Robert and he had lots of fun once upon a time creating a thread devoted to satirical "poems"---some of the best ever written on casebook.
Unfortunately things went very pear shaped when he got drunk ............

[Robert]

Nats, I'm surprised at you. AP, drunk? I have it on good authority that not a drop touches his lips.

He uses a funnel.

[mariab]

As a newbie I've ever “met“ him, but I recall some very satirical posts of his, hilariously entertaining.
Still, the Dutfield Yard picture “controversy“ was very inept (to put it kindly). The same about his insistence in considering Michael Kidney a serious suspect for Berner Street.

[Supe]

Maria,

wild theorists (such as Monty, Rob Clack, Debra Arif, Chris Phillips).

You are joking, right? Not a one of those are wild theorists (or theorists of any stripe, really) but they are all great researchers.

Don.

[mariab]

I'm voicing my immense disappointment at Neil Bell, Rob Clack, Debra Arif, and Chris Phillips. All wild, conspiracy theorizing 24/7 and NO research whatsoever. Tsk tsk tsk. Can't these people even contemplate getting serious, for one minute?
(Of course I'm kidding, Don! These are my heroes in Ripperology – from the next generation following SPE, Keith Skinner, etc..)

[Natalie Severn]

Maria,

wild theorists (such as Monty, Rob Clack, Debra Arif, Chris Phillips).

You are joking, right? Not a one of those are wild theorists (or theorists of any stripe, really) but they are all great researchers.

Don.

Well put Don--and absolutely correct.

[mariab]

PS.: I love it that Don almost went for it.

[Natalie Severn]

As a newbie I've ever “met“ him, but I recall some very satirical posts of his, hilariously entertaining.
Still, the Dutfield Yard picture “controversy“ was very inept (to put it kindly). The same about his insistence in considering Michael Kidney a serious suspect for Berner Street.

Yes, though I don"t think AP ever actually accused Phillip of a hoax or would ever have intentionally suggested such an abhorrent idea.The stuff Ap said about the picture being put through photoshop may have unfortunately given that impression but I always believed it was just that , an "unfortunate impression" that he created going on about Photoshop etc rather than ever it was Ap"s intention to seriously suggest Phillip would have "created a hoax" ---a truly ridiculous and obnoxious idea as anyone who has ever met Phillip knows full well.

[Ally]

Uhm okay first, AP wasn't all timed banned for the Dutfield's. He was suspended, allowed back and then did something remarkably similar though what I have no idea because I don't think I was on the boards at the time, but I think it was something exactly the same which was suggesting someone faked something.

Someone else will have to give details on that one. However,
AP said flat out that the background of the Dutfields photograph had been added. There was no suggestion, there was no implication. It was a direct statement of fact and he was told to provide evidence or withdraw the claim.

He directly accused Phil of faking the Dutfield's photo. I am pretty sure his recent ban was more of the same.

He's not an innocent victim of circumstance.

[Monty]

I'm voicing my immense disappointment at Neil Bell, Rob Clack, Debra Arif, and Chris Phillips. All wild, conspiracy theorizing 24/7 and NO research whatsoever. Tsk tsk tsk. Can't these people even contemplate getting serious, for one minute?
(Of course I'm kidding, Don! These are my heroes in Ripperology – from the next generation following SPE, Keith Skinner, etc..)

No pressure then eh?

Seriously, nice words, thank you, but firstly I am not on the same planet as the names you mention......no way near.

Secondly its a pleasure. I enjoy this. I dont do it for the benefit of others but rather because I enjoy what I do. They are my heros and its an honour to know and meet them. And a greater pleasure to have worked with some of them and others not mentioned such as John, Jake, Paul, Gavin, Mark, Jon etc .

As John has stated on another thread, Im lucky to have these people as friends. We share an interest and enjoy each others company. Is that any different from Paul, Keith, Don, the late Melvin, Richard, Robin, Stewart or any of the greats meeting up over a pint, or at a BBQ?

The meeting of likeminded has been going on in this field for many years. There is nothing sinister in the majority of it, its healthy, and it progresses the case in terms of information, despite what others state. Without such meetings we wouldnt have numerous articles which have appeared in varied publications and here on Casebook, nor the recent documentary.

Its not a bad thing.

And that is my only serious word on the subject as, overall, I find it quite humourous.

Monty

[Natalie Severn]

He directly accused Phil of faking the Dutfield's photo. I am pretty sure his recent ban was more of the same.

I know nothing about any recent ban but I know AP stated he had never accused Phil of a "hoax"---maybe he thought it would have been better if the picture had appeared in its original state with bits of it covered in mould and stuff rather than tidied up in photoshop.

He's not an innocent victim of circumstance.

No,absolutely not.

[DrHopper]

Greetings all.
OK. I Wasn't going to respond this evening, or at all, but I feel I ought to, given the response to my, and other's, comments. I must thank Robert for replying on my original post.
Firstly, no, I don't consider myself to be an outsider or somehow unable to mesh with the mainstream, such as it exists, within ripperology. Thanks Tom for bringing that up, but not accusing me of such. I am not an angry 'outsider', and I would consider myself to be fairly middle ground with my understanding and theorising of JTR, and certainly a lot less outre than some who regularly post here. My current suspects, if I had to plump for any, are fairly mainstream, and I believe, strongly, that we will get to a decent suspect eventually, although of course there will always be doubt and room for debate.
No, simply I am an academic with many years of strict and hard-going primary and secondary research under my belt.
What prompted the posting was simply that something as simple as the addition of some red lines to an already contentious document can cause the ripperological world, at least online, to revert to a seeming default of civil war. Much like one of those African states that the moment something happens to the government, old tribal instincts pick up and before you know it, there are massacres and all sorts of nonsense.
Believe me, as an outsider of sorts, this kind of rubbish is insane.

I think MariaB is correct - what drives this sort of behaviour is the internet and the constant access to what, in academic terms, is publication; i.e. the forum. Response is immediate, and one can post whilst under the influence, for example.

Similary, MariaB's post above (#15) illustrates the point beautifully. I have literally no idea as to what she refers (please believe me, MariaB, this is not a personal attack, just using you to illustrate a point, honestly).

I used the word 'clique' very carefully and precisely in my original post - I don't subscribe to a consiparacy or a cartel view. But the fact that things/people/events are being referred to that have no real or immediate bearing illustrates what I have said. I, nor any other newbie, understands what is being stated... and frankly I don't care; my sole purpose on this website is to discuss the Whitechapel Murders with like-minded people. It becomes problematic when such discussions become swamped with 'in-jokes' and sniping.

This website is a wealth of incredible information, and this forum is simply an invaluable resource and wonderful place for the free and easy discussion of various theories within the workd of JTR, such as it is. It is such a vital and invaluable resource that it should not be lost amid such, quite frankly, petty squabbling, as has been witnessed in the "something wrong with Swanson marginalia" thread.

Anyway. I am going to pour myself a stiff one and continue my research into the post-MJK history of Miller's Court - I anticipate something very interesting quite soon.

Good evening all.

[Tom_Wescott]

Who's Debra Arif?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

I know nothing about any recent ban but I know AP stated he had never accused Phil of a "hoax"---maybe he thought it would have been better if the picture had appeared in its original state with bits of it covered in mould and stuff rather than tidied up in photoshop.
.

Sorry Norma but he did accuse Philip of photoshopping it.

He also accused Rob of being erronous in his confirmation. Rob presented his sound reasoning and AP simply turned on Rob, questioning his knowledge. Which is fine, however whilst all this was happening Robert and Philip presented their evidence whilst AP just got mouthy and provided nothing but abuse.

And it really isnt anyones business how Philip presented the photo. It was he who found it, it was he who handed over his hard earned money for it and it was he who drove the research. Aint no ones business but Philips.

Dr Hopper,

Id like to apologise for my cantankerous post to you on the Marginalia thread. I was in a duff mood and you bore the brunt. Whilst I can be a git at times I can also admit when Im in the midst of my 'gitness'. You posted your views, of which youre entitled to.

Robert is correct, sometimes some of us can be a bit gruff. I recall being a Newbie many many years ago and feeling a bit left out of the in jokes etc. Its difficult at times, however it gets better.

Anyways, sorry.

Monty


Monty

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Dr Hopper.
I think people have always got hot under the collar about differences in their interpretation of ideas and information.
But true this is a fantastic source of information so just let the aggro wash over you!
Norma