Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who Was Jack The Ripper ? (H Division, 2019)

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

  • Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
    With all due respect Paul this is what John said:

    So while he was aware that I had posted the images, at no time before publication did he message me and simply say "Rob, are those images yours and can I use them or if not where can I obtain permission to use them." So every effort was not made.
    That's a little unfair, Rob. John said he was "probably" aware that you had posted those images. He's being honest, he's allowing that he may have known something seven or eight years ago, but now has no memory of whether he knew it or not. But the point is that even if he was aware that you had posted those images, he may not have thought that you were the only person to have posted them or that you were claiming ownership of those images. Furthermore, CSI Whitechapel is an image-heavy book and there were lots of permissions to get. As John said, permissions were sought, people were paid (including you for an image known to be yours), and the standard caveat was inserted that allowed any copyright holders that were missed to stake their claim. Despite all this, you seem to want to interpret the use of your images in the worst possible light, a light that there is no reason to suppose is true. John did try to establish the copyright holders, request permission, and make payments, but you slipped through the net. And the caveat allowed you to make a case if you had wanted to. There was no malicious intent involved.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Paul View Post
      That's a little unfair, Rob. John said he was "probably" aware that you had posted those images. He's being honest, he's allowing that he may have known something seven or eight years ago, but now has no memory of whether he knew it or not. But the point is that even if he was aware that you had posted those images, he may not have thought that you were the only person to have posted them or that you were claiming ownership of those images. Furthermore, CSI Whitechapel is an image-heavy book and there were lots of permissions to get. As John said, permissions were sought, people were paid (including you for an image known to be yours), and the standard caveat was inserted that allowed any copyright holders that were missed to stake their claim. Despite all this, you seem to want to interpret the use of your images in the worst possible light, a light that there is no reason to suppose is true. John did try to establish the copyright holders, request permission, and make payments, but you slipped through the net. And the caveat allowed you to make a case if you had wanted to. There was no malicious intent involved.
      I am not going to push the point Paul. As I don't want to have a falling out with you two (probably a bit late) so I let it go and forget about it.
      Hope you are well.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
        I am not going to push the point Paul. As I don't want to have a falling out with you two (probably a bit late) so I let it go and forget about it.
        Hope you are well.
        I'm very well, I hope, and trust you are too.

        Certainly, we can let it go. I don't want any falling out either. In fact the fewer fallings-out there are in this field the better! We don't steal other peoples images. We don't steal other peoples text. We don't steal. Sometimes we make mistakes though. And if anything good comes out of this thread it will be that people take greater care when sourcing images and don't use other people's words.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paul View Post
          I'm very well, I hope, and trust you are too.

          Certainly, we can let it go. I don't want any falling out either. In fact the fewer fallings-out there are in this field the better! We don't steal other peoples images. We don't steal other peoples text. We don't steal. Sometimes we make mistakes though. And if anything good comes out of this thread it will be that people take greater care when sourcing images and don't use other people's words.
          Perfectly true and some people might think I condone what has alleged to have happened. I don't.

          Regards

          Rob

          Comment


          • Has anyone seen this book? "The Diary of Jack the Ripper 25 Years of Mystery: Research and Conclusion" by Robert Anderson, Shirley Harrison, Keith Skinner, Chris Jones, James Johnston and Richard C. Cobb. (Secret Chambers Publishing, 2017, 128 pages)?

            As with "Who was Jack?," are these a group of essays contributed by Skinner, Jones, Johnston, etc?

            I've never seen anyone discuss this book, but maybe I've missed it.

            As for 'Keith Stride,' I don't know anyone involved in this discussion and don't wish to join in other than I couldn't help notice that when the "Who Was?" book was first advertised under the title "Prime Suspect," there was no Keith Stride mentioned; the name "John JD Chambers" was given as a contributor, but he doesn't appear in the finished product, but 'Stride' does. Sounds like a somewhat obvious pseudonym akin to Colin Tabram or Martin Eddowes. Googling "John JD Chambers" produces some actor that appeared in an obscure low-budget horror film.

            Other than that, I think I'll join Mr. Poster on the outside of the pool.

            Comment


            • Rajah :

              J.D. Chambers is a tour guide for Rick's Rippervision Tours.
              He's usually referred to as John Chambers.
              To Join JTR Forums :
              Contact [email protected]

              Comment


              • Thanks, Howard.

                I could be wrong, but is 'Chambers' (Secret Chambers?) also Stride?

                Here's the original list of the contributors. The names are all the same except that Richard Patterson (The Francis Thompson accuser) has dropped out, as has 'Chambers,' who is replace by 'Stride.'

                I don't know, and I guess I don't care, but it would be odd if some bloke was publishing one theory under one name, and then another competing theory under a second name.

                https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=343644

                Comment


                • I could be wrong, but is 'Chambers' (Secret Chambers?) also Stride?
                  You may be right, R.J.....
                  To Join JTR Forums :
                  Contact [email protected]

                  Comment


                  • According to to Cobb, Keith Stride is female and shall be revealed on Friday.

                    It’s all rather exciting isn’t it? 🙄

                    Monty

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                      According to to Cobb, Keith Stride is female and shall be revealed on Friday.

                      It’s all rather exciting isn’t it? 🙄

                      Monty
                      Happy Days!

                      Comment


                      • I have been away for quite a while doing obligatory tasks before retirement.
                        Having logged on just last week, I am surprised how the tone of posts has become vicious and demeaning. It reminds me of the Krazy Karen era. This type of personal venom is much like what happened on Casebook a decade ago and scarred that site forever.

                        This site does not deserve the same fate. In my opinion, this site has always been a cordial and forgiving place where junior Ripperologists are steered to the more intricate details of the case.

                        I apologize for sounding off.
                        SPERO IN DEO

                        Comment


                        • Thanks, Whitey.....and enjoy your retirement. You've earned it, brudda...
                          To Join JTR Forums :
                          Contact [email protected]

                          Comment


                          • So who was Keith Stride then?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Steve Stanley View Post
                              So who was Keith Stride then?
                              I haven't read all the book yet, but there are some good contributions, and quite a lot worthy of discussion. It was interesting to see some of the 'Old Guard' defend their theories--Martin Fido, David Anderson, Bob Hinton, etc. Fido's theory seems to have crystalized into the belief that if the lunatic didn't die shortly after January 1889, then he aint Kosminski. I'm not sure I can agree with that, but it's interesting.

                              Personally, I know nothing about Mr. Cobb, or the political infighting behind the scenes, or Facebook for that matter, but I found the 'Stride' chapter to be the weakest of the ones I've read. Anyone who has actually gutted a fish will roll their eyes--properly done, it takes 30 seconds to gut a fish, is relatively bloodless, and teaches you absolutely nothing about human anatomy. Only a Freudian profiler from Virginia could believe that it offers some sort of vicarious 'thrill.' It's no more thrilling than peeling an onion.

                              Worse yet, Billingsgate fish porters didn't gut fish anymore than cat's meat men (or women) knackered horses. They moved boxes around.

                              Finally, I'm not entirely sure if 'Stride' has the right Barnett at the end of the article; the guy from 1911 appears to have gotten married in 1887, and I believe the 'Louisa Rowe' connection has been disproven, though I admit I haven't reviewed the data in a long time.

                              This is blunt and cruel, I suppose, but this tendency to want to 'fit up' the characters loosely connected to the case--the Barnetts, the Richardsons, the Hardimans, the Lechmeres, the Hutchinsons, the Flemings, etc., may lead to El Dorado, but it strikes me as more akin to the bloke who has lost his car keys in the park, has no idea where they are, and confines himself to searching under the only available street lamp because that's where the light is. Wrongful convictions are usually traceable to some overzealous investigator or attorney trying to pin the crime on the boyfriend, the neighbor, the passing bystander. The Joe Barnett theory, in particular, seems more like a wind-up or a thought experiment than anything with any true conviction behind it.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                                I haven't read all the book yet, but there are some good contributions, and quite a lot worthy of discussion. It was interesting to see some of the 'Old Guard' defend their theories--Martin Fido, David Anderson, Bob Hinton, etc. Fido's theory seems to have crystalized into the belief that if the lunatic didn't die shortly after January 1889, then he aint Kosminski. I'm not sure I can agree with that, but it's interesting.

                                Personally, I know nothing about Mr. Cobb, or the political infighting behind the scenes, or Facebook for that matter, but I found the 'Stride' chapter to be the weakest of the ones I've read. Anyone who has actually gutted a fish will roll their eyes--properly done, it takes 30 seconds to gut a fish, is relatively bloodless, and teaches you absolutely nothing about human anatomy. Only a Freudian profiler from Virginia could believe that it offers some sort of vicarious 'thrill.' It's no more thrilling than peeling an onion.

                                Worse yet, Billingsgate fish porters didn't gut fish anymore than cat's meat men (or women) knackered horses. They moved boxes around.

                                Finally, I'm not entirely sure if 'Stride' has the right Barnett at the end of the article; the guy from 1911 appears to have gotten married in 1887, and I believe the 'Louisa Rowe' connection has been disproven, though I admit I haven't reviewed the data in a long time.

                                This is blunt and cruel, I suppose, but this tendency to want to 'fit up' the characters loosely connected to the case--the Barnetts, the Richardsons, the Hardimans, the Lechmeres, the Hutchinsons, the Flemings, etc., may lead to El Dorado, but it strikes me as more akin to the bloke who has lost his car keys in the park, has no idea where they are, and confines himself to searching under the only available street lamp because that's where the light is. Wrongful convictions are usually traceable to some overzealous investigator or attorney trying to pin the crime on the boyfriend, the neighbor, the passing bystander. The Joe Barnett theory, in particular, seems more like a wind-up or a thought experiment than anything with any true conviction behind it.
                                Totally agree with this. If the 'two' authors named, Cobb and Stride, were to rewrite their chapters totally in their own words, it would be a decent read. I felt that the Barnett chapter was very weak as was Trow's contribution, but overall I enjoyed it. Just a pity one had to spoil the book for the rest.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X