Off Topic Argument (Moved from Home Office Report thread)

[glyn]

Personally I thought Pirate Jack was worth listening to,it seems some can abuse others and get away with it,others cant.Now I better go "hunker in my bunker".

[Ally]

Yes it does seem that way doesn't it? Kind of like how you said you'd like to shoot Limehouse, myself and a couple of others, and yet, here you are still allowed to post. Some people do seem to get away with an awful lot of abuse on these boards.

Maybe the difference between those that are still here and those that aren't is some people know not to act like petulant little brats and not throw a tantrum when they are asked not to do something.

[Robert]

Having been a member here since 2003, I can say that Chris isn't the kind of chap to hold back information.

And even if Chris were a Machiavellian character, he would be a fool to hold anything back. At the rate of knots that Ripperology moves at, someone else would nip in, discover the info themselves, and publish it thus bagging the credit.

[Monty]

Can someone please clarify the legislation which indicates all readers of Casebook are entitled to information obtained by other researchers?

These researchers go out, fund their own expenses to further their own knowledge. So, again, what gives us the right to demand a viewing? You wanna know, get off your arses and find out.

I have been extremey lucky in knowing so of the best researchers this field as ever had. I've benefitted from their generousity and I shall be forever grateful.

Chris is one of these people.

These people owe nothing to us.

Monty

[Robert]

Exactly, Monty. It would be kind of Machiavellian if someone actually had the solution, and kept shtum about it for several years. Or if they had some vital piece of info about, say, Druitt, but professed ignorance. But yes, if someone knows something they're not obliged to say anything. I think Chris would publish though.

[tji]

I have to say I/Jimi have a lot to be grateful to Chris (and other researchers) for. He has gone above and beyond in helping me with research some Jtr and some personal. He has gone out of his way to help, giving us the research to do with what we want, not asking for any recognition (hopefully to be finished soon) I am grateful for all his help and realise what an asset he is to the boards. I think it highly unlikely he would hold anything back intentionallly. If he ever did I think he would have a good reason to.

Tj

[lynn cates]

Chris

Hello Neil.

"I have been extreme[l]y lucky in knowing so[me] of the best researchers this field [h]as ever had. I've benefitted from their generosity and I shall be forever grateful.

Chris is one of these people."

Hear, hear!

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Apologies for the missing letters and poor spelling. I'm actually on the hoof as I type so not as thorough as I should be.

If someone had the ultimate answer then its theirs to do with as they wish, we have no right to demand.

Selfish? Sure. However it has been the norm here that when 'finds' have been shared they have pounced upon and mauled. Fear is a factor, however in my experience, the incessant justification is more annoying.

Monty

[Ally]

Selfish? Sure. However it has been the norm here that when 'finds' have been shared they have pounced upon and mauled. Fear is a factor, however in my experience, the incessant justification is more annoying.

Monty

While I completely agree that people have the right to do whatever they want with their finds, and are under absolutely no obligation to show anyone anything that they don't want to, I disagree entirely with saying that people who have shared their finds have been pounced on and "mauled". If you are referring to the individual I believe you are, he didn't share his find, he basically came on and said "nyah, nyah, I've found something, you can't see it, but it's great and you just have to take my word that it's genuine. I've shown it to my friends and they agree it's real, so there". Yeah, he might have been "mauled" a bit.

[Monty]

Ally,

If you have an issue with how its presented then fine, however it must not sway the find itself.

As it happens I was referring to AP and his accusations.

Monty

[Ally]

I agree it should not sway the find itself, but it is wrong to say that he presented his find here. He did not. He published it in a book and he never had any intention of "presenting his find here".

Saying you have something and not showing it is not presenting it. If it had been presented here, it would still be available for all to see and view.

And again, I am not saying he was under any obligation to do so. He absolutely was not. I am just disagreeing that he presented it here.

[Monty]

Ally,

It was viewed on this site for a short period, many months before the book was published.

It was also shown at the US conference weeks before that.

Monty

[Chris]

Can someone please clarify the legislation which indicates all readers of Casebook are entitled to information obtained by other researchers?

These researchers go out, fund their own expenses to further their own knowledge. So, again, what gives us the right to demand a viewing? You wanna know, get off your arses and find out.

Thanks for the various kind comments.

Of course, I agree that generally it's up to researchers to choose how, when and even if to make the results of their research known - and no one is entitled to demand information from them.

However, if it had been the case - as appeared to be the implication - that I'd been publicly expressing a view about Aaron Kozminski while suppressing evidence to the contrary, then the criticism would have been justified. But I haven't done any such thing.

[Ally]

Ally,

It was viewed on this site for a short period, many months before the book was published.

It was also shown at the US conference weeks before that.

Monty

No it wasn't viewed on this site for a short period. It was placed on another site for a period of 24 hours at a deliberately crappy resolution, with lines drawn through it to the point nothing meaningful could be determined. And that was only done after it was pointed out how stupid it was to create a thread to discuss a photo no one but 20 people had seen.

It was never in fact on this site.

[Monty]

Ally,

If that's the case then I apologise.

However Philip did present it at the US conference and on the other site.

The bottom line is that this find was labelled as a forgery by AP, without any supporting evidence and his integrity bought into doubt. This was way out of order, which you agreed with.

How he presented it is irrelevant, its the item itself that should be focused on.

Monty