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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Ally]

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

See and isn't that interesting. I'd wager both you and Fleetwood would defend your comments on this thread in very similar ways, that you would not feel comfortable if you hadn't said anything. It's a very interesting double standard, isn't it? Everyone believes that when THEY are the ones speaking out against perceived injustices they are on the side of the right. It's only when OTHER people are speaking out against perceived injustices that it becomes divisive and purposeless and wrong.

Really, interesting contradiction that is.

[Tom_Wescott]

Okay, there's obviously a backstory here I missed. I was not aware of some Ally/Phil argument in which Admin became involved. Any of my posts on this thread were motived only by what has been written on this thread. I was more concerned that Simon and Lynn - whose posting etiquette typically outshines the rest of us - were being painted with the wrong brush. But Phil, God bless him, does have a history of trying to bait people in order to report them or further attack them. He went through a spell like this with me a long time ago, but we're past that. Phil and Ally are like oil and water, so this is to be expected from time to time.

No less than Paul Begg has corrected me about the intentions of Ally's first post, which he seems to feel is completely honest and legit...that being that Trevor and Phil have a cabal; and since Phil is notorious as the hanger-oner of Simon and Lynn, the suggestion seems to be they are collectively up to some shady business. Perhaps all of this is true, but all I can say is that they've completely kept it from me.

And yes, I'd say the boards are generally harmonious.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

See and isn't that interesting. I'd wager both you and Fleetwood would defend your comments on this thread in very similar ways, that you would not feel comfortable if you hadn't said anything. It's a very interesting double standard, isn't it? Everyone believes that when THEY are the ones speaking out against perceived injustices they are on the side of the right. It's only when OTHER people are speaking about against perceived injustices that it becomes divisive and purposeless and wrong.

Really, interesting contradiction that is.

No Ally...no contradiction...of course I'll defend a proposition I put forward in a thread (though not I hope with any personal animus) ... but I'm afraid if you can't see the difference between that, and what has happened here....

All the best

Dave

[Ally]

Do explain the difference. What precisely is the difference between you posting on this thread to tell me my methods, motives and behavior is wrong, and me posting on this thread to complain about that exact same thing in others?

What makes your position superior to mine?

[Cogidubnus]

Oh Ally

I was trying so hard to tread carefully ...If I defend a proposition on a thread in which a debate is taking place, it is one thing. If I start a thread specifically to attack other posters that's another...and before you contend that's not the case:-

wanted to smack the crap out of a certain little arrogant pissant who recently decided to state that Neville appeared on the documentary before any "serious questioning" of the marginalia occurred.

is pretty much a giveaway...you may feel that in this particular case it's a justified reaction to events that have taken place...I can't comment on that, but I hope at least you will concede that there is a distinction

All the best

Dave

[PaulB]

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...

Obviously one shouldn't hypocritically do what the other person does, and one certainly shouldn't do worse than the other person does, but don't you think one has to speak out against injustice in whatever way one feels necessary in order to be heard?

Ally had tried reasoned argument. She'd laid the arguments before Trevor. He refused to respond. He resorted to his usual one-liners. And this isn't a man who is peddling an outlandish theory, but someone who is setting out to challenge others. He calls one a thief, he refuses to apologise and blames someone else, he tried to ridicule and humiliate someone else because he found what he thought was a video of him backtracking on his theory. He damns the theories of others without even having read their books, all but accused a dead man of forging or otherwise tampering with a source document, and on top of all that his ignorance is such that everyone who has seen his show comes away with a catalogue of basic mistakes.

Ally didn't do any of that. She mocked. Scorned. Made fun of. What that really so bad.

I'm glad you've been given an easy ride. I don't like to hear stories such as Errata's. That's not what any of this is about.

[Ally]

Oh Ally

I was trying so hard to tread carefully ...If I defend a proposition on a thread in which a debate is taking place, it is one thing. If I start a thread specifically to attack other posters that's another...and before you contend that's not the case:-



is pretty much a giveaway...you may feel that in this particular case it's a justified reaction to events that have taken place...I can't comment on that, but I hope at least you will concede that there is a distinction

All the best

Dave

Ah I see. So posting multiple posts to criticize the behavior of others is okay.

Posting a post that starts a thread to criticize the behavior of others is where the line must be drawn. A fine distinction I completely miss.

I mean i could always have derailed someone's thread with my criticisms, but then that would have been off-topic, wouldn't it? Damned no matter what I do it seems.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

Why are you seeking approbation from Ally?

Regards,

Simon

[Ally]

Hi Dave,

Why are you seeking approbation from Ally?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon. I am still waiting for you to back up the insinuation you made on this thread of a time when I have lied, slandered or behaved in any way that was deceitful in regards to your person as you appear to believe I did.

You made the accusations and I would very much like to hear the evidence that supports it.

[PaulB]

No less than Paul Begg has corrected me about the intentions of Ally's first post, which he seems to feel is completely honest and legit...that being that Trevor and Phil have a cabal; and since Phil is notorious as the hanger-oner of Simon and Lynn, the suggestion seems to be they are collectively up to some shady business. Perhaps all of this is true, but all I can say is that they've completely kept it from me.

The idea of any cabal involving anyone is ludicrous. Trevor meant it seriously because he thinks a group of Ripperologists are deliberately witholding source material because it disagrees with their beloved pet theories. I doubt that Ally seriously believes that anybody else forms a similarly motivated cabal, but she may fairly note collective common traits. She has accused Simon, like Trevor, of making claims which he doesn't support. Phil spouts much the same stuff as Trevor and sometimes goes even further, even managing to see something nefarious in the publicity surrounding the loan of the marginalia to the crime museum. I don't know how Lynn's involved in the debacle. SO, no, not up to shady business, Tom, but sharing a common - what shall we call it, ethos?