As it turns out, the Ripper Cabal is real...it's just not who you thought it was

[PaulB]

From my perspective I did.

For instance, there wasn't the outbreak of hostilities such as this thread - with the so-called purveyors of truth up against the so called lunatic fringe.

It isn't 'so-called purveyors of truth' against a so-called lunatic fringe. It's somebody masquerading as an acknowledged authority who refuses to answer criticisms of the arguments he makes in books and theatre presentations.

Lynn is nothing but a gentleman.

Yes.

Trevor, though a bit of a maverick, is entitled to his views and entitled to sell books to anyone who will buy them regardless of the content.

Well, that's a moot point, but not germane. Trevor isn't criticised for selling books or giving stage shows, he's criticised for spreading error and misinformation, among other things.

And, in relation to Trevor, this notion of 'deceptive with the facts'. I mean, as the Americans say, gimme me a break. In the event the facts were indisputable, there wouldn't be a message board named Casebook with untold threads.

Nobody is saying that the facts are indisputable, although in every reasonable sense it is indisputable that Chapman was lying on the ground, not propped against a fence, as Trevor says in his stage show. However, it is Trevor's interpretation of the evidence that is seriously flawed, which he never answers, but dodges, ducks, and dives with silly one-liners and accusations of cartels and biases.

Phil sees it differently. I'm not in agreement with much of what he says, but as far as I can see no one has the answers/'the truth' anymore than Phil does.

A breadth of ideas is healthy.

It certainly is. But some ideas aren't healthy at all. It's an idea that the murders were committed by the Loch Ness Monster, but I doubt anyone would regard it as healthy.

In my view, certain posters have gone over the top with Trevor, although I'm sure he's a big lad who can handle himself.

And, now we have this mess of a thread because someone couldn't just leave the Ally/Phil disagreement where it was, even after Admin got involved; that person had to start a new thread, one guaranteed to spiral into a tit-for-tat cycle of verbal chaos.

My suggestion to Admin would be to delete this thread and warn anyone that in future - stick to the case rather than the personalities. Just a suggestion.

I think in this instance that it is about the case. Very much so. It began with Trevor being confronted with a series of very good objections to his claim that Eddowes used her apron for sanitary purposes, and a request that Trevor answer those objections. Trevor didn't. He threw out silly one-liners, a few insults, and he disappeared. It's a tad difficult to avoid being personal when someone does that.

[Cogidubnus]

I'd just like to make one small observation: your earlier Neimoller reference is obviously about speaking out against injustice.

How would you do that?

Isn't that what Ally is doing?

Hi Paul

She probably very sincerely feels she is Paul - But in speaking out against injustice, isn't there a moral duty enshrined in how one chooses to do so? If one party is seen to descend to the level of the other, does this not tend to tar them both with the same brush? It's certainly not very elightening - I think most of us get bored when folk start slinging personal mud...

Notice I'm not commenting one way or another on the ins and outs because I know too little of them...All I know is that as a newbie I've not been groomed or privately exposed to untruths by anybody on these boards, although some posters, when asked have expanded on their theories at great length and personal trouble.... I've generally been treated with a good deal of consideration in that respect and am most grateful for it...but this includes (among many others) notably Lynn and Phil who both seem to have come in for a pasting here...

When you have had your integrity questioned, been accused of falsity, been the subject of intimitatory posts and threats, AND had your private life raked over (to the extent of harrassing people who know me for photographs) then you may understand why this isnt a simple case of Ripperological disagreement.

However, if thats what takes for some to operate then so be it. I wont be wasting sleep over them.

Fine Monty...so why waste your time posting on a thread like this about them? I'd venture to suggest it doesn't achieve much and, as stated above, rather than enlightening the rest of us, it's the least attractive feature of an otherwise brilliant site.

I was one of the posters asked about Ally/Phil - my view was that it wasn't directed at Phil

Hi Mac...much of what you've said in your postings rings bells with me...but I rather think posting the contents of a private mail between yourself and admin is a bit of a no-no...

Of course if you are concerned about it spiraling into tit for tat the quickest way to end it, is actually to not be sucked in.

To some extent you're right of course Ally...on one level I wish I hadn't...but on another I'd not have felt comfortable with myself if I hadn't said anything...and whilst I'm afraid I'm sometimes no angel myself when it comes to a heated debate, I still think this thread's a wrong'un...Sorry!

Best wishes everyone
(And I mean that!)

Dave

[Ally]

Lynn is nothing but a gentleman.

I haven't a single argument against that so nothing I can say.

Trevor, though a bit of a maverick, is entitled to his views and entitled to sell books to anyone who will buy them regardless of the content.

And, in relation to Trevor, this notion of 'deceptive with the facts'. I mean, as the Americans say, gimme me a break. In the event the facts were indisputable, there wouldn't be a message board named Casebook with untold threads.

Ah I see. So give you a break. Trevor might be a "bit of a maverick". How quaint a description. Accusing other authors of theft - How adorably rakish. Such a dashing young rebel! Implying he'll beat up other posters - so manly and charming. Really it's all just dashing raconteur hijinks.

Phil sees it differently. I'm not in agreement with much of what he says, but as far as I can see no one has the answers/'the truth' anymore than Phil does.

No they don't. The difference is, they don't trump up reasons to get Phil banned.

In my view, certain posters have gone over the top with Trevor, although I'm sure he's a big lad who can handle himself.

Wow. Just...wow. Poor Trevor. I mean he can slander, threaten and do what all, and it's just charming, but other posters, THEY'VE gone over the top with Trevor. That's just... wow.

And, now we have this mess of a thread because someone couldn't just leave the Ally/Phil disagreement where it was, even after Admin got involved; that person had to start a new thread, one guaranteed to spiral into a tit-for-tat cycle of verbal chaos.

I am going to bet the "someone" he's referring to is me. Fifty bucks says it's me. Any takers? Of course if you are concerned about it spiraling into tit for tat the quickest way to end it, is actually to not be sucked in.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I didn't notice a relatively harmonious atmosphere.

From my perspective I did.

For instance, there wasn't the outbreak of hostilities such as this thread - with the so-called purveyors of truth up against the so called lunatic fringe.

As far as I can see:

Lynn is nothing but a gentleman.

Trevor, though a bit of a maverick, is entitled to his views and entitled to sell books to anyone who will buy them regardless of the content.

And, in relation to Trevor, this notion of 'deceptive with the facts'. I mean, as the Americans say, gimme me a break. In the event the facts were indisputable, there wouldn't be a message board named Casebook with untold threads.

Phil sees it differently. I'm not in agreement with much of what he says, but as far as I can see no one has the answers/'the truth' anymore than Phil does.

A breadth of ideas is healthy.

In my view, certain posters have gone over the top with Trevor, although I'm sure he's a big lad who can handle himself.

And, now we have this mess of a thread because someone couldn't just leave the Ally/Phil disagreement where it was, even after Admin got involved; that person had to start a new thread, one guaranteed to spiral into a tit-for-tat cycle of verbal chaos.

My suggestion to Admin would be to delete this thread and warn anyone that in future - stick to the case rather than the personalities. Just a suggestion.

[PaulB]

Thank god. For a minute I thought I had stumbled into an alternate dimension and was frantically searching about for this "harmonious atmosphere" of which he was speaking.

Perhaps it was the band playing in tune....

Sorry.

[Ally]

I cannot testify to the veracity of any claims about the character of others. In one instance, I can say with authority that Ally is not wrong. I am not exactly new anymore, but when I joined up about two years ago I was in an uncomfortable incident within my first month or so of being here. It did take place through PMs and email. As it happens, the only person who was disturbed by the incident was my fiance, who has not seen the things that I have seen. Which incidentally is why I no longer post here when he is in the room. .... So it happens. I can't say why or what gain there is to be had, but it does happen.

That sucks and your sounds like a particularly "not good" experience. This is something that I wonder constantly, in regards to newbies. All the behind the scenes crap. I may well be "disharmonious" and "divisive" but I abhor the kind of backroom dealings that goes on by those who put on "polite" faces in public and say absolute dirt and crap behind people's backs where they can "safely" get away with it.

But god forbid you bring it out into the light. Then you are just a sht-stirrer up to no good.

And to be honest this is not a NEW development. It's been going on for years. And the key players might change but the game remains the same.

[Ally]

I didn't notice a relatively harmonious atmosphere.

Thank god. For a minute I thought I had stumbled into an alternate dimension and was frantically searching about for this "harmonious atmosphere" of which he was speaking.

[PaulB]

I was one of the posters asked about Ally/Phil - my view was that it wasn't directed at Phil.

What I didn't say to Admin, because no such question was asked, is that it appears Ally is a divisive, antagonistic character who just can't leave things alone.

In any group of people there are those that spoil an otherwise relatively harmonious atmosphere, not because they're pointing out inconsistencies or uncovering 'deception', but because that's what they do - they're divisive - and simply won't leave it alone until everyone is squabbling.

I didn't notice a relatively harmonious atmosphere.

[Errata]

First off, I need to say that I have no desire to get into the personalities of this debate. I like to think I can get along with anyone (barring one absolutely inexcusable meltdown on my part). And sure, I read this thread because I am human, and therefor prurient by nature but I had no intention of posting.

I cannot testify to the veracity of any claims about the character of others. In one instance, I can say with authority that Ally is not wrong. I am not exactly new anymore, but when I joined up about two years ago I was in an uncomfortable incident within my first month or so of being here. It did take place through PMs and email. As it happens, the only person who was disturbed by the incident was my fiance, who has not seen the things that I have seen. Which incidentally is why I no longer post here when he is in the room.

I was neither damaged nor offended by the interchange. But in retrospect, the reason I wasn't has quite a bit to do with the things I have been exposed to in my life, that not many people have been exposed to. Certainly my fiance was a little damaged, but he has to toughen up anyway. I'm not complaining about it. I'm a big girl, and if I felt uncomfortable about it, I would have said something. I did not feel as though I was being groomed, but I did have a solid knowledge base on the topic going in, so I cannot speculate what it would have felt like to someone without that knowledge. I did feel as though my challenges to the theory were not taken in the spirit in which they were made, but nobody takes criticism well.

It cannot be truthfully said that new people are not being exposed to certain theories in a private setting. They are. I was. And it has never happened since, so I cannot say that the incident in question was not unusual. I thought it was the norm at the time, but I didn't know better. And I cannot speculate as to what the purpose of that exposure is. I was fine with it. Still am. But I can easily see how others might have found it disturbing or somewhat heavy handed. So it happens. I can't say why or what gain there is to be had, but it does happen.

[PaulB]

He was hated for various and sundry things, so that depends on who you ask and about what. But for the most part, no, I was not.

In that case you were a victim by association, which is wrong.

I didn't ask for sympathy then, and don't now, but the experience has perhaps made me more conscious of how easy it is to lump people together. As mentioned, I'm as guilty of this as most, and more guilty than many.

And nobody is saying that you sought sympathy then or since, which does not mean you are undeserving of it. However, your experience might make you predisposed towards others who you perceive to be in the same or a similar situation. So I ask whether those you named are, like you, innocent bystanders, or are they band members espousing the same beliefs and supporting the same causes?

'Rant' was her word, not mine. See her first post. I didn't use it to 'dismiss' her points, which were primarily about Trevor Marriott. If you read my post again, I'm not really talking about Trevor at all, except to say that I see him more as an 'in your face' kind of guy as opposed to 'behind your back', which is what 99% of the posters on here are. I totally get where Ally's coming from with most of what she says, but the purpose of this thread is solely to take the stigma attached to Trevor's character and cast it upon those who have chosen to be open to Trevor. It was on that which I offered my two cents. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. First time for everything.

Yes, it was Ally's word, which you took and used dismissively, as if this was just Ally blowing off steam and not in actuality making a fair and legitimate point. And I'm not sure that Ally was accusing Trevor or anyone else of being anything less that 'in your face'. What was and is her point is that theories are advanced, but when questions are asked the people making the point disappear, or they come back with one liners, sometimes cryptic, other times desperate, or they throw out accusations at others, or they try to play diversionary tactics, as she several times accused Phil of doing. I thought she saw a common trait, a common behaviour, and potentially a common intent and purpose. That's what I thought her point was. I may be wrong.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I was one of the posters asked about Ally/Phil - my view was that it wasn't directed at Phil.

What I didn't say to Admin, because no such question was asked, is that it appears Ally is a divisive, antagonistic character who just can't leave things alone.

In any group of people there are those that spoil an otherwise relatively harmonious atmosphere, not because they're pointing out inconsistencies or uncovering 'deception', but because that's what they do - they're divisive - and simply won't leave it alone until everyone is squabbling.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,
Were you marching in the same band and playing the same tune as Dan Norder? Were you as guilty as he of whatever he was hated for?

He was hated for various and sundry things, so that depends on who you ask and about what. But for the most part, no, I was not.

If you weren't, if you were close by and got caught in the fallout, if you were damned by association, then what happened to you was wrong and one has every sympathy for you.

I didn't ask for sympathy then, and don't now, but the experience has perhaps made me more conscious of how easy it is to lump people together. As mentioned, I'm as guilty of this as most, and more guilty than many.

But is there anything in your experience which is comparable to what is at issue here, to what you so lightly dismiss as 'Ally rant'?

'Rant' was her word, not mine. See her first post. I didn't use it to 'dismiss' her points, which were primarily about Trevor Marriott. If you read my post again, I'm not really talking about Trevor at all, except to say that I see him more as an 'in your face' kind of guy as opposed to 'behind your back', which is what 99% of the posters on here are. I totally get where Ally's coming from with most of what she says, but the purpose of this thread is solely to take the stigma attached to Trevor's character and cast it upon those who have chosen to be open to Trevor. It was on that which I offered my two cents. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. First time for everything.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

I refuse to argue in any way nor discuss with anyone using a level of derogatory language as has been displayed here. Far from 'sitting in a gutter' I will talk and write with composure and refuse to be goaded into any form of public slanging match.

Right. Absolutely. I do love how you actually think if you don't blatantly INSULT someone, you have the high ground in all you do. What a crock. Actions matter more than words my dear fellow. You can SAY or refuse to say, whatever you want, but your actions will always matter more than your words.

I have to say that I stay silent in the face of rudeness. NOT because I 'run away' but my nature, and the way I was brought up tells me. I will NOT discuss or answer ANY person that deems such form of language appropriate. I do not deem it so. And that is that. Period.

You don't deem certain WORDS appropriate? I don't deem deceptive practice or action appropriate.

I would like to make something CRYSTAL CLEAR to Ally. I wrote to Admin in VERY CLEAR WORDS that all I wished for was certain posts removed from a thread. I SPECIFICALLY WROTE that I didnt want ANY individual to 'get into trouble' and SPECIFICALLY WROTE that it wasnt my intention or wish to cause anyone to lose the pleasure of their involvement here. All I wanted was certain posts removed. If you wish to ask Admin he has my permission to confirm the above, without revealing my pm,

I frankly do not CARE what you stated to Admin. You have no more power authority or voice when it comes to deciding what Admin will do than any body else. YOU DON'T CONTROL ADMIN'S DECISIONS. And when you report someone, your wishes don't count for squat and you don't dictate what happens to them. They can be banned, suspended or whatever based on Admin's decisions not your precious wishes. And when you REPORT someone for something so clearly BS and attempt to get them in trouble (and I don't care what you say, that was your goal) you don't then get to claim a high ground and state "oh I told teacher, but I didn't want them to get in trouble." BS.

However, as you gave the go ahead, I did look into and here's what the FACTS are. In regards to the single question of "What action did Phil request in the Report Post?"

Your Report Post said NOTHING regarding having the posts deleted. There is only a single sentence in your Report Post that referenced consequences or what your expectation was for administrative action and it was this: "Recently Admin warned us all to steer clear of personal insults or face severe consequences.". Your initial Report Post said NOTHING regarding no action being taken. It was only AFTER you were told that after investigation no action would be taken that you stated it was not your intention to get anyone in trouble, but merely wanted the posts deleted. Your initial Report Post did not, in any way shape or form request that no penalization occur. In fact, it clearly indicated the opposite and that your expectation, based on Admin's words was that there would be "severe consequences".

So you Reported a Post and indicated a desire for "severe consequences" and when you were told that the facts didn't merit any action being taken, suddenly your wish is not for any action taken, certainly not any "severe consequences", but merely to have the posts deleted.

(It should also be pointed out that he was of course factually incorrect as to what Admin had "recently warned". Not to mention being factually incorrect as I did not, in any way shape or form personally insult him.)

This thread, in my opinion is unsuitable for further gainful discussion at the present level. I refuse to answer any more accusation made either directly to me by name or by any form of association. As Monty's posting, above does not name an individual, readers who are not in the 'know' like myself, can associate ANY of the 5 names Tom Wescott listed to be responsible for such actions. This is grossly misleading.

This is, in fact true. So I will state I am 100 percent confident that Phil was not the person being referred to in this specific case.

Therefore I RESPECTFULLY ask that this statement is not a subject for further public discussion either for or against. I sincerely hope my request is adhered to. Thank you.

No. Putting RESPECTFUL in front of your every comment and hanging your argument on word choice doesn't make you respectful and it doesn't put you in the right. You stir up trouble for people and then want to hide behind "I didn't MEAN to", "that wasn't my intent", and "respectful". Sorry no. I call BS. And you can claim what you want now, and no doubt will be believed, you being so polite and all, but the fact is, you decided you didn't like an argument, and rather than arguing it fair, you pulled a dirty trick, and went to the administration in an attempt to have me censured or worse IMO, censored.

[PaulB]

Since today is apparently all about back-pedaling, let me say that when I wrote my 'three-tier' post, most of the drama had not yet occurred and I was just having fun on yet another Ally rant thread. However, I think my tier rather accurately represents those that are currently being accused of being in league together, though I'd be surprised to learn that Trevor, Simon, Lynn, or Phil engage in much 'grooming' of new people, especially in private and by PM. Also, based on what I know of them personally, which admittedly is very little, I must say I think this foursome is far LESS likely than most of the people on this board to engage in private smack-talking.

I think it's obvious that most of Ally's vitriol is directed towards Trevor, so let me add that I would be surprised (not shocked, but surprised) if Trevor was guilty of reporting her, or Monty, or anyone else to Admin. He seems like a get as good as he gives kind of guy. He doesn't seem to be as easily offended as, say, a Phil or a Cog.

Back in the day, I used to catch a LOT of flack...and I mean a LOT...because of my association with Dan Norder. Once people hated him, they seemed to hate me by default, and I was very annoyed by this. I knew a different Dan, and liked him, and was literally punished for this. I must say that I think Simon and Lynn (and to a lesser extent, Phil) are being chastized/shunned/punished for their association with Trevor. I was quite annoyed recently by the warm welcome offered by Lynn to returning poster, Michael Richards, who is well-known to have a particular Jones for me. I took it as a personal affront that someone so known for personal attacks, horrible research, etc., would be so encouraged, but then I realized this is how others must have felt when they saw me being friends with their enemy, Dan Norder, so shame on me. I'm just as guilty as everyone else here, and not casting any stones. But I think that if any group is going to be accused of 'grooming' newbies, or pall mall behind the back smack-talking, Trevor/Simon/Lynn/Phil should probably be towards of the bottom of that list.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,
Were you marching in the same band and playing the same tune as Dan Norder? Were you as guilty as he of whatever he was hated for?

If you weren't, if you were close by and got caught in the fallout, if you were damned by association, then what happened to you was wrong and one has every sympathy for you.

But is there anything in your experience which is comparable to what is at issue here, to what you so lightly dismiss as 'Ally rant'?

[Monty]

Hello Phil,

Its a shame you felt the need to disassociate yourself from my post, as it wasn't made to name individuals but to show to Dave that the reasons for such is personal and goes beyond mere difference of Jack ideas.

Monty