|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 538
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 3:32 pm: |       |
Hi,
I am bewildered that the majority of us , tend to dismiss, the grave spitting incident, that was reported to have taken place at the funeral of Mary kelly, in my opinion it is the most crucial peice of evidence, ever to come out to date.
I agree it is only hearsay, but as discussed in the past, it has a definite ring of truth about it, and most important of all, it fingers just one person ,Joseph Barnett.
Critics have said , if true it could have been any one present,but there is enough solid reasoning to state , that as, the grave spitting was said to have occured before the grave was mounted, the only person it could have been, was Barnett. If this reasoning is a good assumption, how can we ignore suspecting him of to say the least totally irrational behaviour, added to the suspicion that is discussed on him , on a regular basis on these boards, he has to be named 'Jack the ripper' unless we find a better suspect.
I know I shall get a lot of flak on this post, but I remain convinced, what I am stating is fair play.
Regards Richard. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 324
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
I will just re-itterate once what I have said earlier. It is not uncommon for a loved one to exhibit anger toward the recently deceased, particularly when it could be said that the death was in part the fault of the deceased.
Spitting on a grave is not incriminating behavior.
Andy
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1755
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
Richard, even if someone did spit on Kelly's grave, what evidence is there to show that it was Barnett?
Didn't the police allow the general public in, once the inner circle of mourners had departed?
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 539
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 2:53 am: | |
Hi Andrew , and Robert,
Andrew.
I feel that you , are trying to make excuses, I accept that a part of grieving , can involve a degree of bitterness' Why have you left me like this ' attitude.
However, to go to this length, shows a type of person . that can appear perfectly normal in behaviour, then change into a monster.
I for one can not accept, spitting on a love ones grave, is normal behaviour, when just a few minutes before, you are standing head bowled at a service.
Robert.
It is true that , the general public were allowed in , once the inner circle of mourners had left, but this was after the grave was filled. and flowers were mounted.
Farsons contact. stated her mother said quote.. 'my mother and her friend noticed that after the service, one man stayed behind, and when he believed himself to be alone, parted the boards with his feet, and spat down on the grave several times'
If one notices sketches made at the time, one can clearly see a pile of boards close to the graveside, ready for use, and these were used once the service was finished , whilst they waited to fill in the grave, and it was at this time , and this time only, that this incident occured, at any later time , the boards would not have been there to part.
If one visits kellys grave site, you will understand, that the front of the church, with the outer railings, was unable to see the actual service, for the position of the grave is behind the back of the church.
Taking all this into consideration, and noting that eight people, were standing , if not kneeling, around this service, and these eight people, consisted of six women, one priest , and Barnett[ clearly depicted in a sketch] one can understand why I have come to the obvious conclusion.
Richard. |
Thomas Olson
Police Constable
Username: Tomolson
Post Number: 1
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 4:40 am: | |
Hi all,
When I was at St Patricks last August, I Stopped at the cemetary office and asked to see the admissions book for burials on November 19th 1888.
There were two that day. On page 120 is Mary Kelly from the Shoreditch Mortuary, and Another 60 year old listed as being from Whitechapel. Could it be a Mourner from the other buriel that was not happy with a prostitute being buried in the same cemetary? Next time anybody visits the Cemetary,Stop at the office and ask for a chap named David. He is one of "US" and has been to the Cloak and Daggar meetings. He also mentioned it was John McCarthy who insisted Mary be buried in a church cemetary even if it was a common grave and showed me where John and his wife are buried only a few hundred feet from Mary.
Tom |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 182
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 6:05 am: | |
where does the evidence of the grave spitting come from? i have heard it 'said' b4 but am not sure where it orginates?
thanks
jennifer |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1758
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 9:18 am: | |
Hi Richard
Are you sure that the general public weren't admitted until the grave had been filled in? Could you give the source? (sorry if you already have somewhere else, but it's been a while since this subject last came up).
The version in my Farson book goes : "I heard of a curious incident which took place in the cemetery that afternoon. The mother of the person who wrote to me was visiting another grave. After the mourners for Kelly had gone, she and her friend noticed that one man stayed behind and after some time, believing himself to be alone, he parted the boards above the grave and spat down on it while the terrified women hid behind their tombstone. I asked my informant whether they had told the police : 'They were too scared. They thought the Ripper might take revenge on them.' Such stories, of course, are hearsay, but they illustrate the feeling about the Ripper at the time."
This version has the incident taking place after the mourners had left, which is slightly different from "after the service". The question would be, was it after the inner circle mourners had left, or the general ones?
Re funeral arrangements, I have always been too dazed and upset to remember much about the funerals I've attended, but I believe the normal procedure is that the grave is dug, and may be covered with boards for safety until the funeral. Then when the service has been concluded and the mourners depart, the gravediggers, who have been waiting nearby, move in and fill in the grave.
Your incident would imply that for some reason they covered the grave with boards while there was still at least one mourner present, then after he'd gone they filled in the grave before the more general mourners, sightseers etc came into the cemetery - which I find odd.
Robert
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
Your description by Farson , is an accurate one,I do not think it is odd that, the boards were placed over the grave, as soon as the service was finished, the explanation for this , we can never ascertain.
The statement, after the mourners had left, one man stayed behind , implies that all the mourners , except one man left.
It was reported, that the general public, were not allowed in until the grave was filled , and floral tributes were placed. therefore, as Farsons imformant said the culprit of this action , parted the boards, with his feet, and one man stayed behind, it would imply that one of the mourners a male[ thus Barnett] was the perpretrator.
We should remember , Farson had this imformation in 1959, but as he stated , along with a huge amount of correspondence, went missing, yet he remembered this one letter , as being significant, enough so to mention it in his book in the early seventies.
Remember, after Farsons guide to the british in 1959, he asked the public to write in about general imformation, not Mary kelly, is it not strange , that a elderly woman , should take the trouble , to mention a incident in her long dead mothers life, regarding such a sombre subject as this, and out of all the victims pinpoint an incident at leytonstone cemetary, which if this woman was telling the truth, most certainly implicates somebody who was present alone in the vacinity of the service, at some point before the grave was filled.
As it refers to 'one man stayed behind , it could not have been one of the masses, waiting anxiously to obtain admission, because , when they were allowed to filter through, the grave was filled , and mounted with Flowers.
I am still convinced.
Regards Richard. |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 96
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
Richard,
With all respect, this "grave-spitting" dog you have been touting so long just won't hunt. I have followed the story on previous threads and the provenance -- emerging 70 or so years after the supposed event -- is so unsubstantial as to be invisible.
I have mentioned a couple times that I have been a professional historian and a journalist, neither of which necessarily give a leg up as a Ripperologist, but having worked in those fields you learn early on about the unreliability of so many "great" stories based on oral tradition. Facts are obscured, discrete incidents conflated to a whole and family involvement becomes more intimate (that is, what was once told to a family member eventually happened to a family member).
This is not "lying" (on the previous thread you put great emphasis on your belief a mother would not lie to a daughter). Rather, it is a sad fact of human nature. I could keep you trapped for days recounting some of the exciting stories of this nature that I had to eventually discard because they weren't true. And yet in the majority of cases the folks telling the story truly believed what they were saying was gospel.
You are, I know, a "Barnettist" and are working on a book with that theme. I don't happen to agree, but that is besides the point when I advise forgetting about this tale. You already have a very strong reason to propose Barnett as responsaible for at least one murder -- he had cohabited for nearly a year with the victim and then shortly before her death there was a break in the relationship. Build on that; speculate from that because it is a factual foundation.
Whether you take my advice or not, good luck with the book and I look forward to reading it.
Don. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 541
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 4:21 pm: | |
Hi Don,
One must remember, that 'jack' haunted the whole of the U.k IN 1888, My own grandmother told me that her father used to call her in , by stating [ rather cruely[ If you and your sisters dont come in The london Bogey man will be after you.
Of course the claim of the grave spitting is not substanciated. yet it is mentioned, and we cannot deny that.
Of course respecting your opinion, it is just plain oral history, but I am afraid that is all we have to go on, I wish I was old enough to remember first hand , but alas , even my years , leaves me 59 years short.
You are correct, Leanne, and myself do have enough to pinpoint Barnett to at least one murder
But your claim that oral history is worthless is ,not credible, because you are accusing every witness, as being stupid, and after What?.
Regards Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1764
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 5:44 pm: | |
Richard, you seem to be saying that Farson's source for this story went missing, and Farson had to remember the details of the story when writing his book. So we have :
1. The original witness has to interpret what she sees correctly.
2. Some time later, she has to remember the incident correctly when informing her daughter.
3. The daughter has to hear correctly what her mother says.
4. Some time later, the daughter has to correctly remember what her mother had told her, when writing to Farson.
5. Farson has to remember the letter correctly when writing his book.
During a trial, if a police officer asks to refer to his notes, the judge will ask him if the notes were made at the time - even if the events in question occurred only a few months before.
I feel it's time to lay the grave-spitting to rest, if you'll forgive the phrase.
Robert |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 97
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 7:54 pm: | |
Richard,
I certainly didn't mean to suggest all oral history is false and that the people who tell the stories are stupid. It has just been my sad experience that all too often the very best stories (the ones we want to be true because they are so juicy) prove otherwise.
I see it in myself. When younger I played a lot of baseball and when I gather with teammates now 20 years later all of our remembered feats become a little better, a little more dramatic. You are reckoned a wise turf consultant and I would bet that when people talk of races 30 years ago or so that over the years close finishes have become a little closer and stretch runs a bit more dramatic than they actually were.
Now something like your grandmother being scared inside by stories that Jack would get her are certainly believable. My uncle used to keep me from snooping in his cellar with similar tales of boogiemen.
Anyway, if you can convince me when the book comes out all power to you. Good luck.
Don. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 542
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 3:34 am: | |
Hi Robert,
Memory is a strange thing, It is well known, that traumatic events in peoples lives,will stay with them forever, and one can remember the smallest details, Farsons imformant would have been shocked, what her mother told her, her mother would have been horrified, what she actually witnessed, and I should have imagined both relayed accurate messages,
Out of hundreds of letters addressed to Farson in 1959, he remembered this one to be intresting, he also would have remembered the content vividly.
So I dispute your point about memory.
Regarding witnesses, obviously some of the people involved may have got it wrong, or may have simply been glory seeking, but in order to understand this case, and try and interpret the truth, we have to take seriously any intresting facts, that may have been witnessed, because as i have said before, they were present in 1888, and we were not heard of.
Richard. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 161
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 4:27 am: | |
Hello Folks,
I have been following these discussions of Daniel Farson and his mention of having received a letter concerning the grave-spitting incident.
You may be interested to know that this incident also formed the focal point of one of Farson's two-part documentary programmes about JTR, produced on,I think, ITV in late 1959.
I have learnt of this fact whilst studying pre-airing publicity of these programmes in Australia. The newspaper publicity.
Perhaps research in London contemporary newspapers
for October/ November/ December 1959 might produce further background information.Check the T.V. programme section.
And if the actual two-part documentary film can be located, I, for one, would be most interested
as this touches on my research into Farson and the Dandenong Document.
I think one of the programmes was entitled something like "The Incident At The Grave". |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 6:40 am: | |
We ignore the grave spitting incident because, to put it bluntly, it's utterly worthless as evidence three times over.
1) We don't know that it ever really happened at all.
2) If it did happen there's no good reason to believe that Barnett was involved.
3) Even if it did happen and it were Barnett that still has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether he killed anyone.
Only someone whose mind is already made up and is desperate to find potential evidence, no matter how weak, to support their suspect could possibly find this incident compelling in the slightest.
I mean, honestly, with this and that nattering nun story you keep bringing up even Cornwell sounds more logical than you. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 10:58 pm: | |
Richard wrote:
"You are correct, Leanne, and myself do have enough to pinpoint Barnett to at least one murder "
No, that's not what he said. He said you have a reason to propose that he killed, not that he did kill anyone.
Let's use your style of logic here on another suspect and see how easy it is to use the exact same rambling "it must be true because I say it's true" philosophy to point to another individual as the killer.
Elizabeth Prater's kitten Diddles didn't have an alibi. OK, well, sure Prater says Diddles was with her at the time MJK was heard to cry out about murder, but not for the TRUE time of death (as decided by me and that can change on a whim as more facts about Diddles come in later).
But wait, it gets better. Some nun 30 years later probably said it was pussie that got MJK killed. And because what some random nun says is more important than what the police, criminologists, psychologists and scholars say, she must be right. And the pussie must refer to Diddles, right? I mean, what else could it mean? No, surely the nun wouldn't be saying anything other than what I think she was saying, and she MUST be right...
Someone else 50 years later can claim that a cat coughed up a hairball on MJK's grave and you'll believe it, because you'll believe that kind of stuff. And the cat must be Diddles because that's the only cat related to a case we know the name of who could possibly be at the grave. Because if it were some other cat we'd have the name, right? It couldn't be a random previously unknown cat, because that wouldn't be fair because how could we find out who it was? And since we know that Diddles was a psycho killer, and the odds that there'd be TWO psycho serial killer cats is just astronomical, so it was definitely Diddles. So obviously it really happened and you'd be a fool to disbelieve it, and hairball coughing means great murderous rage, right? So we proved that Diddles was angry so that's got to be the answer. Oh, and all the other victims were killed by Diddles too. Lots of anger. Or maybe to piss off MJK. Whichever, both, doesn't matter.
But what about being able to actually carry out the murders? Well, a witnesses testified that Diddles was known to stand on Prater's neck, and obviously had claws, so probably progresed to scratching necks and then to knifing them when scratching wasn't enough to satisfy the animal lust -- and, as an animal, Diddles was bound to have had animal lust. And cats eat fish, so obviously they have seen the insides of fish, and that certainly would give any cat the anatomical knowledge necessary to gut a woman.
All this evidence points to one feline, and regardless of how ludicrous it is, you can't disprove it, so obviously it's true...
So, basically, Richard, your whacky assumptions and strange second hand folklore that's supposed to prove something can all be summed up quite simply: It's all a bunch of Diddles. |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 10:15 pm: | |
I agree with Andrew. There's a huge difference, between spitting on someone's grave, and serial murder. In fact, that's a giant leap! If such an act could be linked to the other so easily, then that is just plain disturbing! |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 928
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
Richard,
I agree totally with Donald and Dan.
It is not a matter of people necessarily delivering false stories. I may not have Don's experience as a journalist or as a historian, but I can very much second to the fact, that oral traditions are problematic in this context. I can't for my life understand why you press this story as "evidence", when it isn't -- that is intellectual suicide (I've said it before and I'll say it again).
Your belief in the credibility of hearsay that goes so may years back is astonishing to say the least. Dan Norder has pointed out three very good reasons to why this incident (if it ever occurred) shouldn't be taken too seriously. And as Donald put forward; if you want to do a serious research, you can't rely on people's oral statements regarding an event taking place several years back and call that "one of the more crucial pieces of evidence". This incident means nothing! Even after a few weeks a witness testimony and a person's memory can be totally distorted. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you. You are not even sure about the credibility of the source and furthermore, you have no other source or evidence to back it up -- and you want to call it evidence! That won't do. This event won't help you into making Barnett a credible suspect -- far from it, believe you me. Leave it, Richard, leave it.
To paraphrase Andrew: spitting on a grave is NOT incriminating behaviour, regardless who did the spitting.
You are looking for threads where there aren't any.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 05, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 2:23 pm: | |
Dan,
I respect your opinion, but with the greatest respect, I find your summing up of my post ludricous, you are treating it as a huge joke, when this thread, was intended to be a serious attempt to discuss this incident.
If you and others believe Leannne, and myself are building our case, on a grave spitting incident, then you will find you are way off track, it forms just a few lines in one chapter.
Anyone can attack a post, by making remarks, which makes a poster seem an idoit, but I have been studying this subject for nearly forty years, and the results that I ,along with co writer Leanne, have discovered will be revealed in our book.
Glenn.
I cannot say , if the grave spitting incident ever occured, no one can, I was simply imforming readers of these boards, which incidently are not just comprised of registered members, but are availiable to the whole of the web, world wide, who might have found this supposed incident intresting.
And to say , spitting on a supposed love ones grave is the norm , and not at all incriminating, to my state of thinking is a strange belief,
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 930
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 12:32 am: | |
Richard,
If you have studied the subject for forty years, I would expect you to have learnt how to do a critical examination of your sources, instead of jumping at everything that points in the direction of Barnett. With all sincere respects, what I think is worrying is your uncritical way of dealing with your sources.
You say: "If you and others believe Leannne, and myself are building our case, on a grave spitting incident, then you will find you are way off track, it forms just a few lines in one chapter." But why are you making such a big deal out of it here, then? As you yourself go on about it, one gets the impression that that is what your whole case is built upon (although I naturally understand that isn't the case). Wasn't it you yourself who called it "the most crucial peice of evidence, ever to come out to date."?
I don't believe anybody here have implied that spitting on their loved ones grave is the norm, but it ISN'T incriminating in itself.
With that being said, I am really looking forward to that book of yours; I am convinced it will be an interesting read.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 162
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 2:27 am: | |
Oi! You lot,
I posted what I thought was a useful bit of info. for the keen spit-on-the-grave enthusiasts.
The title of this thread is: "Why Do We Ignore?".
My question is: "Why do you ignore?". |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 549
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 2:28 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
I do repect peoples opinion ,regardless of their status on this subject, I also welcome critisim, because after all , these boards are for conversation, and how dull it would become, if everybody agreed, with each other.
I am not making a big deal , out of the alleged grave spitting, I was just bringing it up on a thread.
By calling the refered incident' The most crucial
evidence to come out to date' I should have added the word circumstancial.
I have made my points, regarding this alleged incident, and it is now up to the indervidual reader to judge for themselves.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 550
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 2:48 am: | |
Hi John,
I most certainly will not ignore , your post, I did not know, that Farson, actually had a programme, refering to the grave spitting, I wonder if the I.T.V archives, still have the programme shelved.
I am still of the opinion, regardless of the other posts, on this thread, that such an alleged incident , should be at least be discussed fully, with a degree of seriousness, and not dismissed with a air of sarcasim.
Lets not forget, this incident refered to Leytonstone cemetary, the site of kellys funeral, not any of the other victims,and as one of the suspects for these murders, happened to be present, at that very spot, we should give this matter serious thought.
One wonders, if kosminski, Druitt, Tumblety, was present at one of the funerals, would we say 'So what'
I would doubt that...
Lets also remember , when Farson received this alleged letter in 1959, Barnett was never even considered a possible candidate for 'Jack'.
But I would say one thing, If the two teenage girls had reported the alleged incident to the police, at the time, Then our Mr Barnett, would have been brought to the police station, and the girls would have been asked to identify him as the culprit.
But fear , prevented these young women from repeating this alleged incident, for many years, and we only know of one of them repeating the incident.
Glenn.
You will notice I am careful , to use the word alleged.
Regards Richard. |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 1:41 am: | |
Richard wrote:
"you are treating it as a huge joke when this thread, was intended to be a serious attempt to discuss this incident. "
And, no offense, but that's what makes it funny. The same leaps of logic you want us to believe are crucial to this case can implicate a house cat if applied in the same way toward that objective.
"If you and others believe Leannne, and myself are building our case, on a grave spitting incident, then you will find you are way off track, it forms just a few lines in one chapter. "
Then I recommend losing it so as not to have your readers scratching their heads when they get to it. Well, assuming that what's left behind is better argued, of course.
"I have been studying this subject for nearly forty years"
For the record, 40 years does not make you right, 40 years makes you emotionally invested. I can see that you are emotionally attached to your suspect, so that's not something you need to convince me of. If you want me to believe you are right, you need evidence that supports that. Alleged grave spitting doesn't. The personal musings of a nun do not either.
"It is well known, that traumatic events in peoples lives,will stay with them forever, and one can remember the smallest details"
Well known but incorrect. Memory simply doesn't work that way, as many recent studies (put "memory research of Elizabeth Loftus" without quotes in your favorite search engine) have shown, time and time again.
And even if it did, it is a huge stretch to assume that the one person's supposed trauma could accurately carry this anecdote through two intervening people into the form we have it in now. |
Peter Neumann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 7:10 pm: | |
Hello, regarding the grave-spitting incident maybe it was just simply a matter of Barnett thinking good riddance to bad rubbish. Maybe that is all it was and nothing more. Reading anything more into it might be completely off base.
He might have detested her at the end of her life because she fooled around on him--maybe he thought good riddance to her, she was nothing than a common slut and deserved what she got--he probably had no respect for her at all, even though he was involved with her.
Some men even today (in our enlightened times) have no respect for women at all and view all women as beneath them....Male chauvinists, you know. Mary probably didn't even have to "fool" around on him to garner his reactions.
Reading anything more into the grave-spitting incident elevates Barnett, when he was probably nothing more than a very trashy human being--he is said to have come to blows with Mary....What kind of "man" hits and abuses a women anyway in the course of day-to-day life? Garbage of the lowest common denominator, in my opinion.
However, it doesn't POSITIVELY indicate that he was the one who carved her up a la JtR, not even remotely in fact. Such an incident is more in keeping with an abusive "man".
P.S. To Richard and Leanne: I was wondering IN GENERAL if you use people's posts on here to give you ideas/theories when you are writing the book? If that is so, will you be properly crediting their ideas/theories as sources in your book? I would think that doing anything but that is plagiarism.
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
