Whiggishness and the anti-Anderson Lobby

[Adam Went]

Maria:

Exactly, I don't think anybody is really under any illusions as to the importance of Mortimer's testimony, or lack thereof. Which makes it all the more bizarre to me that in relation to the statements of other witnesses who are perfectly credible, or the established chain of events in Berner Street, Mortimer's testimony should still be so hotly debated.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Maria Birbili]

There is no shame in learning and therefore there is no shame in making mistakes, providing that one doesn't have a bullish attitude, learns from those mistakes and doesn't continue to make silly statements on the same subject.

Live your life by that adage, Adam, and you'll become not just a great Ripperologist, but also a great researcher.
Adam, going out on the limb and speaking for others, I'd dare say that I'd be surprised if anyone here considered Mortimer an important witness, containing important info about the murder. But this doesn't mean that we can dismiss her altogether or disregard her as a witness.

PS.: Finished polishing my manuscript AND just found a capable French colleague to cohost the conference I'm organizing next year, so, for once, no bad news. Feels weird not having bad situations to take care of...

[Adam Went]

Maria:

There is no shame in learning and therefore there is no shame in making mistakes, providing that one doesn't have a bullish attitude, learns from those mistakes and doesn't continue to make silly statements on the same subject.

Tom:

I’m presuming nothing. You blatantly and without provocation suggested the possibility of another Stride article.

If there was going to be, then it would need to be from a fresh standpoint - in other words, not simply a revision of AMOT. One could spend the rest of their life simply updating old work with new information and new discussions, and to me that is pointless.

I’m glad you decided against leaving the field, but I’m a hard guy to please and have been quite pleased with the feedback I’ve received from my Stride articles. But then I worked hard and long on them.

I have some pretty strong opinions on some of the work which gets published and some of the reactions it gets, and it's best that I don't state what they are publicly, but I will say that if nothing else, you deserve kudos for the effort you go to with your research and writing.

I’d love to know who you consider ‘top researchers’. At the end of the day, it would be your group of three versus myself and literally everyone else in the field regarding the subject of Mortimer. You kind of give the game away when you say that inserting her ‘ruins’ your solid timeline. That’s not how we’re supposed to treat evidence. And incidentally, she fits in perfectly like a glove.

The fact is, Tom, that she wasn't even considered a viable witness in 1888 as has already been pointed out, so there's no reason why she should be in 2011. 10 minute gap, 30 minute gap, 12 hour gap, whatever you like, there is NOTHING in her statements which help us in the Ripper case as far as other witnesses or suspects go. Goldstein was cleared, she saw nothing else, that's it. It's got nothing what so ever to do with attempting to maintain a "solid timeline".

Jeff:

I'm pleased that Pipeman is being given more serious consideration.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jeff Leahy]

Well I'd consider a lot of posters here 'top researchers'

So while I appear to agree with you, yes bizarre but actually Tom and I tend to agree on many points, there have been things said (particularly about Pipeman) that require serious consideration.

Its just that pesky Star report

Yours Jef

[Tom_Wescott]

You're presuming that i'm even going to bother with another piece on Stride. I didn't say that.

I’m presuming nothing. You blatantly and without provocation suggested the possibility of another Stride article.

In fact based on some of the treatment i've received since AMOT, i'd gladly get away from writing on Ripperology forever.

I’m glad you decided against leaving the field, but I’m a hard guy to please and have been quite pleased with the feedback I’ve received from my Stride articles. But then I worked hard and long on them.

I would be calling in the assistance of some top researchers, and when it was published, there would be no room at all for any argument about Mortimer.

I’d love to know who you consider ‘top researchers’. At the end of the day, it would be your group of three versus myself and literally everyone else in the field regarding the subject of Mortimer. You kind of give the game away when you say that inserting her ‘ruins’ your solid timeline. That’s not how we’re supposed to treat evidence. And incidentally, she fits in perfectly like a glove.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Maria Birbili]

Excuses for what exactly?

It's funny that you ask. :-)

In my view if one is working on something like an article then that should be their sole focus at any one time

It's a book, written over 2 years ago, not an article, and incidentally I've worked for 12 hours straight, polished about 150 p. of the manuscript and there are only about 40 p. left, so I can breath now. Plus it wasn't as horrible as I was afraid it would be, I partly enjoyed it.

There is no shame in learning.

That I agree with.

[Adam Went]

Maria:

Which excuse do you use then?
The current days are exceptionally hard, as I'm trying to finish polishing my 450 p. of a book manuscript in German to go to the editor. Still have about 200 p. to go and hope to finish it tomorrow.

Excuses for what exactly?
In my view if one is working on something like an article then that should be their sole focus at any one time, they shouldn't be trying to concentrate on 4 or 5 different tasks at any one time. But again, that's just me. There is no shame in learning.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Maria Birbili]

Maria:
What was that about me never showing you to be wrong?

I said “so far“, didn't I? You have evidently broken the spell on that theorem. So maybe you will be correcting me again in the future, esp. if I keep staying preoccupied with other things than Ripperology, as is the case right now.

For the record I have a pretty hefty workload myself outside of Ripperology, but I don't use that as an excuse for mistakes.

Which excuse do you use then?
The current days are exceptionally hard, as I'm trying to finish polishing my 450 p. of a book manuscript in German to go to the editor. Still have about 200 p. to go and hope to finish it tomorrow.

I suspect that you might have confused Leon Goldstein with Morris Eagle.

Not really, as I've caught up a bit better with Morris Eagle last week. I located his sketch (reproduced in a fascinating old Rip article by Eduardo Zinna) and I was reminded that it was Eagle who was giving a speech (on “why the Jewish would gain from becoming socialists“) at the IWEC on the night of September 29.

As for Goldstein, i'm with Jeff in that he need not necessarily have seen the killer if he was simply passing through the street as opposed to standing at a doorway, Mortimer style - it's even plausible that Liz and her killer were already in the passageway as Goldstein passed by!

OK, then I'm with Jeff and with you on that one too.
(And evidently, when I said that Leon Goldstein would have “come face to face with the killer“ I wasn't thinking clearly, since Goldstein was on his way home and not to the IWEC. I think. No time to look right now.)
Now back to my manuscript (sigh).

[Adam Went]

Maria:

What was that about me never showing you to be wrong?
For the record I have a pretty hefty workload myself outside of Ripperology, but I don't use that as an excuse for mistakes. I suspect that you might have confused Leon Goldstein with Morris Eagle.

As for Goldstein, i'm with Jeff in that he need not necessarily have seen the killer if he was simply passing through the street as opposed to standing at a doorway, Mortimer style - it's even plausible that Liz and her killer were already in the passageway as Goldstein passed by!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jeff Leahy]

I dont see why he comes face to face with the killer?

If the killer goes back up Berner Street to commercial Road and turns left, 1 minute or 90 seconds (slow walk)

If he goes up Berner and turns right at the Nelson....10 seconds.

Yours Jeff

[Maria Birbili]

Might have been out of left field, this one. Apologies, pretty exhausted right now due to an extensive workload and having changed my venue again, NOT through my own choice. (As excuses go. What's your excuse, Adam?) ;-)
PS.: For Goldstein I'd still say 00.50 instead of 00.55, otherwise he'd have come face to face with the killer.

[Adam Went]

Maria:

What Jeff said. It's been well established that Goldstein passed by shortly before 1 AM, at approximately 12.55 am in fact. That's already been stated in this thread.

So there's still some explaining to do as to where the 12.40 reference came from..."left field" as you might say?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jeff Leahy]

Precisely, and that's why I assume that Goldstein passed through just a bit earlier before Eagle got in the club, as last, at 00.40.

12.40? How do you come to that conclusion?

He passed shortly before 1 am?

Jeff

[Maria Birbili]

where did you get the idea from that Mortimer saw Goldstein at around 12.40 AM? Was that not the same time Morris Eagle was supposedly entering the passageway?

Precisely, and that's why I assume that Goldstein passed through just a bit earlier before Eagle got in the club, as last, at 00.40.

[Adam Went]

Maria:

I feel we're going around in circles and i've had enough of it, but just one thing, where did you get the idea from that Mortimer saw Goldstein at around 12.40 AM? Was that not the same time Morris Eagle was supposedly entering the passageway?

Tom:

I already did this, in a letter to the Editor at Ripperologist magazine, that readers voted tied for best essay of the year, even though it was only a letter.

I wonder how many of those votes came from your own mouse, Tom. I seem to recall that thread and you pushing your letter quite hard to not much avail when I last checked, in fact. I also seem to recall that AMOT wasn't one of the options. But let's not be picky - even if AMOT was one of the options, I wouldn't have even voted for it, because i'm not that self-centred.

Well, maybe just a LITTLE further. I am using ALL documentation when I say that Mortimer was inside her house behind closed doors at 1am. This is her own words, as she NEVER stated she watched Diemshitz come by. Likewise, the Diemster did not see her. She clearly stated she went inside a few minutes before he came by. Every single scrap of reliable evidence…every bit of it…has her off the pavement before 1am.

Precisely. We agree that she was inside before 1 AM. But then according to your 10 minute gap theory, we can't push it back too far, or else she should have been on the street to see what Schwartz saw - which she wasn't. So you're playing with a very, very fine timeline indeed.

I can only say again that the Stride murder is the only one out of the entire series of murders where we can construct a fairly solid timeline in the lead up to the murder. It is beyond me as to why we should ruin that by trying to incorporate the testimony of one witness, who saw nothing of any value in any case.

I will have feedback for you. It’ll wil be your choice whether it comes before publication, after, or both. I guess that depends on what your priority is this time around – getting to the truth and producing the best piece of research possible, or publishing another train wreck with no acknowledgements because you’re just trying to appease your ego. I promise I won’t call you Grasshopper.

You're presuming that i'm even going to bother with another piece on Stride. I didn't say that. In fact based on some of the treatment i've received since AMOT, i'd gladly get away from writing on Ripperology forever. But IF I was going to produce another piece (and I don't see why I need to produce an 80 page marathon every few months in order to be considered the "reigning king of Berner Street" as you called me) then I would be calling in the assistance of some top researchers, and when it was published, there would be no room at all for any argument about Mortimer.

Cheers,
Adam.