Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #91
    Unfortunately, the apparent plagiarism now IS the main issue with this volume....And no response from the authors concerned. I too have sympathy for those who have had their original work caught up in this, maybe they should be pushing the point that they may be damned by association?

    Comment


    • #92
      I spoke to a couple of the contributors about the plagiarism before making it public and while they were understandably disappointed they were not surprised. I had also been told by someone with an inside angle on this book that 'Keith Stride' is Richard Cobb. I don't know if this is true but to me it was a reliable source.


      JM

      Comment


      • #93
        Damn this controversy! I was all set to write 'Yesterday.'


        I shall have to do Dr Munson's roses next week after all.

        Comment


        • #94
          Paul
          By 'generalised blurb' I meant it was introductory stuff. It was to introduce the subject in a general manner and seems to have been in the opening chapter.
          While the original author may have chosen his words with care and craft - it was (as Jon Bennett agreed) not ground-breaking.

          I haven't been able to see the Barnett chapter in any detail to gauge the extent of any copying.
          Unfortunately in this field, as I pointed out by my own experiences, things of this nature are not uncommon.

          Comment


          • #95
            What a joke.

            JM

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
              Paul
              By 'generalised blurb' I meant it was introductory stuff. It was to introduce the subject in a general manner and seems to have been in the opening chapter.
              It's a poor show if a writer can't come up with their own introductory material, whether it's groundbreaking or not.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen"
              (F. Nietzsche)

              Comment


              • #97
                Here’s the Barnett chapter again in case anyone’s having difficulty “gauging the extent of any copying.”


                Originally posted by JMenges View Post

                (pg 44)
                Sonia Szurma was Peter Sutcliffe's regular Saturday night date and his serious girlfriend. In fact, she was the only girlfriend anyone had seen him with. He put her on a pedestal and spoke to work colleagues regularly about her. However, she had been spotted by his brother Mick with an Italian boy who was a local ice-cream salesman. Sutcliffe, feeling betrayed and utterly devastated, decided to confront her, but Sonia refused to answer any of his questions about the situation, or whether their relationship was over or not. They argued fiercely and Sutcliffe left her to lick his wounds. He felt angered and humiliated, his already sense of low self-esteem getting the better of him. It has been suggested that Sutcliffe was impotent.
                That night, Sutcliffe decided to take his revenge by going with a prostitute. Perhaps it was way of trying to deal with his sexual issues. Driving up Manningham Lane, he went past the Royal Standard pub, and at a petrol station he saw a prostitute waiting for customers. Having confirmed she was "doing business", they agreed on a price of £5.

                Coincidentally, Trevor Marriott in his book ‘The Evil Within’ contains the exact same sentences:

                The events that it was later suggested turned Sutcliffe against prostitutes went back to when he had first started dating Sonia Szurma. She had been his regular Saturday night date and serious girlfriend. However, Sutcliffe’s brother Mick had spotted her with an Italian boy who was a local ice-cream salesman. Sutcliffe, feeling betrayed and utterly devastated, decided to confront her, but Sonia refused to answer any of his questions about the situation, or whether their relationship was over or not. That night, Sutcliffe decided to take his revenge by going with a prostitute. Perhaps it was way of trying to deal with his sexual issues. Driving up Manningham Lane, he went past the Royal Standard pub, and at a petrol station he saw a prostitute waiting for customers. Having confirmed she was "doing business", they agreed on a price of £5.

                As many of you are aware Mark Ripper wrote an article in Ripperologist magazine 132 about the similarities between a chapter from Trevor Marriott’s book ‘The Evil Within’-concerning the serial killer William MacDonald- with the already published works of Paul B. Kidd, specifically from an essay by Kidd on the now defunct Crime Library website and in Kidd's book Never to be Released.

                What’s puzzling is how ‘Keith Stride’ and Trevor Marriott can both use sentences identical to Canadian Yorkshire Ripper researcher Keith Brannen, who has been operating his website on the Yorkshire Ripper case for nearly 20 years.

                http://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/victim01.htm

                EVENTS LEADING UP TO ATTACK: "THE PROSTITUTE INCIDENT"
                Sonia Szurma was Peter Sutcliffe's regular Saturday night date and his serious girlfriend. However, she had been spotted by his brother Mick with an Italian boy who was a local ice-cream salesman. Sutcliffe, feeling betrayed and utterly devastated, decided to confronted her, but Sonia refused to answer any of his questions about the situation, or whether their relationship was over or not.
                That night, Sutcliffe decided to take his revenge by going with a prostitute. Driving up Manningham Lane, he went past the Royal Standard pub, and at a petrol station he saw a prostitute waiting for customers. Having confirmed she was "doing business", they agreed on a price of £5.
                "I thought I would have intercourse with the prostitute, but I changed my mind when it got to the stage where we had got to do it. We were on the way to her place and were talking and I realised what a coarse and vulgar person she was. We were practically there and I realised I didn't want anything to do with her. Before getting out of the car I was trying to wriggle out of the situation, but I felt stupid as well."


                JM

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                  Paul
                  By 'generalised blurb' I meant it was introductory stuff. It was to introduce the subject in a general manner and seems to have been in the opening chapter.
                  While the original author may have chosen his words with care and craft - it was (as Jon Bennett agreed) not ground-breaking.
                  In which case, every future author on this subject might as well save themselves some time by simply repeating Paul and John’s writing as their own introduction.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    The - I thought fairly obvious and uncontroversial - point I was making was that there is a quantifiable difference between copying original research or some other original matter and copying general statements.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                      The - I thought fairly obvious and uncontroversial - point I was making was that there is a quantifiable difference between copying original research or some other original matter and copying general statements.
                      It’s quantity, regardless of content or quality, that makes plagiarism legally actionable.
                      If it fails to reach the threshold of actionable it’s still considered (by all reasonable thinking persons) unethical and dishonest.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                        The - I thought fairly obvious and uncontroversial - point I was making was that there is a quantifiable difference between copying original research or some other original matter and copying general statements.
                        So copying research or imagery without accreditation is a no-no, whereas passing off a passage of text from a published book word for word as one’s own work is ok?

                        Comment


                        • I don't believe I said it was OK... did I?

                          Earlier in this thread I actually was at pains to describe a situation where someone behaved in a reprehensible (lacking in decency and gentlemanly behaviour) manner - irrespective of whether it reached the threshold any potential or possible legal recourse.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                            I don't believe I said it was OK... did I?

                            Earlier in this thread I actually was at pains to describe a situation where someone behaved in a reprehensible (lacking in decency and gentlemanly behaviour) manner - irrespective of whether it reached the threshold any potential or possible legal recourse.

                            Too bad the situation we can all see you're at pains to describe isn't similar at all. This book is for sale. It contains reams of text that was created and published by someone else that is being passed off as original work. Passed off as their own. For profit.

                            Deflection would help your friend and ally Ricky Cobb though, wouldn't it?

                            And score points against me whom you despise, and rightly so. I would too if I were you.
                            The feeling is mutual.



                            JM

                            Comment


                            • Friendly heads up....

                              The sole issue on the thread is the plagiarism found in Who Was Jack The Ripper ? .

                              Its clear that the material was lifted without permission or attribution.

                              I know that if it was me being charged with plagiarism that I'd make every effort to counter the claim.

                              Only someone with no concern as to how they'll be perceived in the field or on its fringes would avoid responding.

                              It doesn't speak well of anyone who would attempt to circumlocute the obvious here.
                              To Join JTR Forums :
                              Contact [email protected]

                              Comment


                              • The lack of direct response speaks volumes?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X