Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Casebook Examiner Number 5

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

  • Casebook Examiner Number 5

    Casebook Examiner Number 5 is about to burst upon the scene in less than a week and it promises to be as interesting and informative as the issues that have preceded it.

    Leading off will be an article by Corey Browning that examines the Ripper’s psychological makeup and which concludes with a diagnosis of Jack’s mental disorder. Meanwhile, Ben Holme and Christer Holmgren both take a look at George Hutchinson. Ben argues that Hutchinson lied about seeing Mary Kelly the night of her murder and is a good candidate for Jack. Conversely, Christer says that Hutchinson didn’t lie and the argument he did kill Mary is all wet. Finally, you will have to read the article by Tom Wescott to learn who was the man who had five separate acquaintances named as Jack the Ripper.

    The features section will begin with a full complement of reviews—books, films and television programs—that promises a plethora of points of view. The ever informative “On the Case” brings readers up to date on news in the field, while an “Extra” interview with John Bennett takes us backstage at the filming of the new Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Story documentary. Stewart Evans dispenses more advise in his regular “Collector’s Corner” column and Don Souden discusses, among others, Sax Rohmer and Adrian Conan Doyle in his “Open Book Exam” detective fiction essay. The “Library Bookshelf” focuses on the Florence Maybrick trial and “CSI:Whitechapel” takes a necessarily quick look at the Goulston Street Graffito. A new feature, “Backstory,” makes a sporting link between 1888 and today. Finally, we end as always with Rob Clack’s illuminating “Scenes of Crime” photo essay, which this time is a look at H Division police stations.

    If you are not already a subscriber you should act quickly so you don’t miss this exciting issue.

    Casebook Examiner

  • #2
    Originally posted by Casebook Examiner
    you will have to read the article by Tom Wescott
    Surely, this goes without saying.

    Having already read Corey's article, I'm curious to see what others think. I am personally about as much into profiles as I am enemas, but Corey's was surprisingly keen. He has a good instinct.

    I'm very anxious to read Ben and Christer's point/counterpoint. I know Ben has a Jones for Hutch, but the threads are so scattered and pockmarked that I don't feel I fully appreciate or understand why Ben feels this way, so this article is, in my opinion, long overdue.

    With all the other features, it sounds like another amazing issue. And people will be relieved to learn my article is very short.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Comment


    • #3
      tempus fugit

      Hello CE & Tom. Is it already up to #5? I can't believe it. My, how time flies.

      Hope to see mine soon.

      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • #4
        I can't wait for another rousing grammar and spelling debate! Screw those researchers, spelling and grammar are more important than factual content and research! Dave
        We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Dave. Those who can write, those who can't criticize.

          Yours truly,

          Tom Wescott

          Comment


          • #6
            Hello Tom, I am not sure about that, but it is no surprise that when I came to casebook it was chock full of self professed experts and writers, with very few researchers to be found. A pack of "writers" sitting around waiting for the toil of others to come to light so they in their "expert" opinion could cut into that "find" with no counter evidence. Armed only with self inflated egos and no understanding of the macro picture they launch counterattacks that ignore logic, other evidence, and in some cases substantial portions of the corpus they are "expert" in. It is laughable,save for the fact that it drives researchers away. Rest assured these "experts" will be the first to complain when researchers stop contributing, and their shrieks of, "no progress" will be the loudest. People who pride the term "Ripperologist" as hyper critical are usually those who can type a perfect sentence and cannot find their ass with both hands! Dave
            Last edited by protohistorian; 12-10-2010, 12:02 AM.
            We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

            Comment


            • #7
              Tom & Dave,

              Gentlemen, please! Examiner has been proud and happy to publish articles by both of you and hopes to again in the future. As it is, Ripperology should be a tent big enough to accommodate researchers, analysts and mere enthusiasts and I'd like to believe all are necessary to advance our knowledge and that all can coexist without rancor.

              Don Souden.
              Editor Examiner.
              "To expose [the Senator] is rather like performing acts of charity among the deserving poor; it needs to be done and it makes one feel good, but it does nothing to end the problem."

              Comment


              • #8
                No rancor Supe. That last comment of mine was not aimed at Tom, who while being a writer, also does research. It was aimed at the mass of "writers" and "authors" who have never generated any data or done any research, yet have felt the need to produce a book. The secondary source mafia know who they are. Mr. Wescott and I are fine with each other and I expect share some common ground on this issue. Dave
                Last edited by protohistorian; 12-10-2010, 06:26 AM.
                We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Protohistorian wrote:
                  I can't wait for another rousing grammar and spelling debate! Screw those researchers, spelling and grammar are more important than factual content and research!

                  I know exactly what Dave and Tom mean here, and it's factually documented on the thread for Examiner 4. Interestingly enough, the 4th issue of Examiner hasn't generated ANY discussions whatsoever besides one Tumblety/Andrews in America thread, which was pretty much expected.
                  (I happen to need to read Examiner 4 thoroughly, as I've only had time for a very quick run through, having left the R. J. Palmer concluding piece entirely out. Then I need to read some back issues of Ripperologist and Ripperologist 117, and only then Examiner 5. Ouch! But at least I'm conducting Ripperological research.)
                  Best regards,
                  Maria

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi Don. As Dave says, he and I are perfectly fine. I was merely agreeing with him. I liked his piece and it never occurred to me to criticize his grammar or whatever. No one can question Chris Scott's status as a researcher par excellence in this field, so who cares if the guy isn't a writer? Same goes for everyone else. I think it takes guts when you first start publishing in a field such as this.

                    I was shocked when my spelling/grammar, whatever, came under attack for my Le Grand piece. I had maybe one misspelled word (stationary instead of stationery), which is not bad for a 52 page article, yet pages were devoted to its discussion. I can only assume it's because the work itself was bulletproof.

                    Yours truly,

                    Tom Wescott

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Personally, I'm ridiculously excited about the two Hutchinson articles. So, I have my gin and mince pies lined up in readiness for #5 hitting my inbox. Happy days

                      By the way, as a researcher and writer (albeit not in this field, except for fun), I really don't see that they are mutually exclusive activities.
                      best,

                      claire

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Claire wrote:
                        By the way, as a researcher and writer (albeit not in this field, except for fun), I really don't see that they are mutually exclusive activities.

                        Of course not, Claire. Coming from a researcher/writer/teacher (just like you) in another field.
                        And by the by, best greetings to Pakistan (if you're there now).
                        Best regards,
                        Maria

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I hope they're not mutually exclusive. Although, some peeps around here are more researchers than they are writers, and some are more writers than they are researchers.

                          Yours truly,

                          Tom Wescott

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No worries, Tom. You most certainly can do both, “stationary“ (or other minor typos) non-withstanding.
                            Best regards,
                            Maria

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I hope so also Tom. I love to research, and I loathe writing. Therefore, when I write, I do so too share findings from research. If for some reason my impetus for sharing is removed, I still research, but I do not write and I do not share. I am ASSuming I am not alone in this view. I really could give a rats arse what people think of my writing, and so criticism is is helpful mostly, and therefore a good thing. That sentiment dissolves when the focus of discussion turns on writing and not the facts presented. I am also ASSuming I am not alone in this. The problem as I see it is that people who have never researched anything beyond a television schedule feel but perceive themselves 'writers' (particularly on this site) feel free to comment on the writing because they are 'experts' but either fall mute on discussing content, or worse offer criticism that a five year old could outthink. Dave
                              We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X