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

[Steve Stanley]

Please answer the points raised

[Paul]

1% of the introduction did not appear to be in "the same style" as anything, it was someone else's words, a verbatim lift from CSI Whitechapel. I have no idea what the waffle about "back office system" and someone writing blogs is all about, but it's irrelevant whether he thinks 100 words in 6000 is of no importance. It was wrong.

[Steve Blomer]

I would have settled for a complimentary copy of the book, but Rick Cobb probably wasn't going to send me one.

Reconsidering my impression of the Kosminski chapter, it wasn't bad. Elmarna could have written a summary of the Bucks Row murder, though.

If it had been a book on the murder sites I would have Scott.
Actually that chapter was written almost 12 month before I finished my book.


Cheers anyway


Steve

[John Bennett]

Rick's reply :

I can only comment on my own personal chapter and apologize for the 1% of the intro appearing to be the same style of intro as a previous book.

I have a mountain of quotes, blogs and essays on my back office system which I use for updates, FB sites and promotions with work etc.

It’s a good intro and I wondered how it actually got into my chapter from my back office system.

Then I realised I had at one time an author getting paid for writing blogs for me which is probably why those actual 100 words are in that intro.

But to fair, I agree with what Ed said. 100 words of intro blurb in a 6000 word chapter is hardly something to write home about.

Interesting...


I can confirm that I have been 'an author getting paid' to write such blogs, but I can assure everyone that the noticeable sections from p.209 of 'CSI: Whitechapel' were not in any of them. Nor where the sizeable sections on Joseph Barnett as found in the Keith Stride chapter which were taken from the Ripper:Wiki entry.


The only way that the material from CSI: Whitechapel could have landed on the pages of this current book is if somebody sat down with the book in front of them and typed them out. There is enough in it to be an obvious lift, so this is hardly 'appearing to be the same style'.

[Paul]

Interesting...


I can confirm that I have been 'an author getting paid' to write such blogs, but I can assure everyone that the noticeable sections from p.209 of 'CSI: Whitechapel' were not in any of them. Nor where the sizeable sections on Joseph Barnett as found in the Keith Stride chapter which were taken from the Ripper:Wiki entry.


The only way that the material from CSI: Whitechapel could have landed on the pages of this current book is if somebody sat down with the book in front of them and typed them out. There is enough in it to be an obvious lift, so this is hardly 'appearing to be the same style'.

John,
We all know that when we’re researching we sometimes copy into our notebooks snippets from other people's books, and when we later go through our notes it’s sometimes difficult to tell whether we are the author of something or whether its something we’ve copied. It’s therefore understandable that sometimes a sentence or paragraph slips through the net. When this is noticed, a simple “oops, sorry mate” apology is acceptable, but it says a lot when the person who has copied your work tries to minimise what they've done by describing it as just ‘appearing to be the same style’, tries to shuffle the responsibility off onto someone else, and finally tries to dismiss what they’ve done as unimportant.

[Abby Normal]

Would be nice to hear what you guys thought of the other chapters. I’m assuming you read the book ?

Hi Rick Cobb
as an objective observer of this thread who has no dog in the fight and no affiliations with anyone on here, I would recommend you simply apologize to the authors for the mistake, ask their permission to use (and accredit) and don't try to minimize.

that being said congrats on the book-but how could you not have a chapter on James Kelly?!? One of a handful of very valid suspects IMHO. : )

[Rick Cobb]

Both three good responses from John , Paul and Abby.

Ofcourse I apologise for having those words in the intro of the book and I think Paul has hit the nail on the head with mistakes that can happen. I want to thank John for also admitting that he was a paid researcher and content writer for my groups and sites. I would not have mentioned his name for obvious business reasons, so that took courage.

I was merely pointing out how the mistake could have happened. However this probably won’t be good for some people who would rather believe I sat and wrote about 5900 words on my own then decided to copy word for word only 100 words for a basic intro. Does that sound likely ? Obviously not.

But the fact remains it’s there in black and white and I apologise for it being there. I will include all acknowledgements in any follow up book and see John and Paul right.

As for James Kelly. He is a great suspect but we couldn’t prove he was in london or the area at the time or mentioned by high ranking officers. So he was excluded.

For my part I’ve always favoured Druitt as the Ripper and I would have loved to have written a chapter on him but can’t do better than David Andersen I’m afraid.

[Guest]

Much of his chapter was copied from what already appears on Rippervisions website. So do I think he sat down and wrote 5,900 words for this book?
No.

JM

[Abby Normal]

Both three good responses from John , Paul and Abby.

Ofcourse I apologise for having those words in the intro of the book and I think Paul has hit the nail on the head with mistakes that can happen. I want to thank John for also admitting that he was a paid researcher and content writer for my groups and sites. I would not have mentioned his name for obvious business reasons, so that took courage.

I was merely pointing out how the mistake could have happened. However this probably won’t be good for some people who would rather believe I sat and wrote about 5900 words on my own then decided to copy word for word only 100 words for a basic intro. Does that sound likely ? Obviously not.

But the fact remains it’s there in black and white and I apologise for it being there. I will include all acknowledgements in any follow up book and see John and Paul right.

As for James Kelly. He is a great suspect but we couldn’t prove he was in london or the area at the time or mentioned by high ranking officers. So he was excluded.

For my part I’ve always favoured Druitt as the Ripper and I would have loved to have written a chapter on him but can’t do better than David Andersen I’m afraid.

thanks Rick
it might not be able to be verified that Kelly was in London at the time of the ripper murders but he most certainly was a suspect at the time, or at least person of interest. and along with all the other things about him-he needs to be in there! Maybe just a thought for any follow up. : )

[Rick Cobb]

Much of his chapter was copied from what already appears on Rippervisions website. So do I think he sat down and wrote 5,900 words for this book?
No.

JM

A basic overview of the Ripper murders ? Yeah that pretty much appears everywhere Jonathan. Calm down dear.

[Rick Cobb]

thanks Rick
it might not be able to be verified that Kelly was in London at the time of the ripper murders but he most certainly was a suspect at the time, or at least person of interest. and along with all the other things about him-he needs to be in there! Maybe just a thought for any follow up. : )

It’s def an idea there. This is only part 1 of a trilogy of books. So exciting times ahead.

[Guest]

Calm down dear.

I’m blissfully calm. It’s you who should be panicking.

JM

[Rick Cobb]

You love me really darling x

[Suzie Huntington]

I've been reading this thread with some interest. Clearly the contention is that the pseudonymous Keith Stride is believed by some to be an alter ego of Ricky Cobb. This then impacts on the further contention, by some, allegedly, that the chapter of the book written by Keith Stride has been plagiarised from other author's work. I have no way of knowing whether this is correct or not, I am merely observing the contents of the thread.

Given that presumably Pen and Sword would need to establish the provenance of any author who publishes under their name (after all plagiarism is not particularly good for business) would it not solve matters once and for all if, at the book launch, Keith Stride appears and defends herself against what are, after all, pretty serious allegations? Certainly, if I had been accused of this I would be wanting to clear my name.

Would it also not be a sensible and an astute move for Ricky Cobb and Pen and Sword to issue a combined statement, confirming there has been no plagiarism and that they are both able to verify the identity of Keith Stride and that he/she is not Mr Cobb. After all, Pen and Sword must have confidence in Mr Cobb and his authors, which he brought together, or they wouldn't have published the book.
Indeed the more this issue progresses the more concern will be raised within the wider Ripperology community and beyond regarding Mr Cobb's forthcoming Yorkshire Ripper book and I am sure nobody would be wishing for the increasing stigma around this publication to spread to that book as well.

[Rick Cobb]

Are you suffering from Alzheimer’s Jonathan ? You keep posting the same stuff. I’ve explained my chapter. As for Stride. Well I’ve heard he was Trevor Marriott, Paul Harrison and now me inside the space of one thread. Can we at least check his or her handwriting against that of the Maybrick diary ?