|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through April 25, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Professional Standards:
Archive through April 25, 2001
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 12:48 pm |        | Nothing I need respond to, I think. I won't thank by name anyone writing in support of the A-Z authors: God knows we've heard enough of the word 'conspiracy' on these boards, so I'll just let independent words stand as independent, only saying that unless I've ever come across Caz at the Smoke and Stagger, I don't actually know or have any private correspondence with any of the people contributing here except Paul Begg and Melvin.
Martin F |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 12:54 pm | | I think we need to have a full idea of the fact here before anyone jumps to conclusions. One of the problems in assessing this business in the past has been the paucity of objectively acquired information and the fact that a slightly incomplete or one-sided picture was tending to emerge.
I'll try to set out what I understand to be the background and sequence of events in the Paley business. If I get anything wrong then please anyone feel free to correct me.
Melvin Harris states:
"In 1987 Camille Wolff gave me a copy of Paley's magazine piece [which theorised thast Joseph Barnett was the ripper] and stated that it was a 'completely new theory about the murders'. She said that the author would welcome comments and she gave me an address in New Cross and asked me to write to him. At that point I knew nothing about the author and his US origins, or his theory. When I next saw Camille I told her that i didn't feel i had anything useful to say; I had found the research defective, and the 'new theory' was one that i had already met up with in a novel in New York in 1977. Camille's response was ; 'that's odd he comes from New York and imports American comics and books".
I understand the matter was left there for some years until Bruce Paley wrote a letter to a magazine accusing another ripper author, Paul Harrison, of 'stealing' his theory. I am told this became an ongoing dispute between Paley and Harrison with claims and and counter-claims being made, and I gather it was against this background that Harris wrote his note to Martin that has been quoted above but which I will quote again here:
"Under JOSEPH BARNETT you might like to note that the essential thesis was first worked out in detail in Mark Andrews' novel 'The Return of Jack the Ripper'. This was published by Leisure Books, New York 1977, 5 years before Paley set out 'his theory'.Bruce Paley, it should be noted, is a New Yorker who used to import American books and comics. Ah well!"
On receiving this note , which was part of a longer letter suggesting amendments and providing info for the A-Z, Martin Fido wrote this reply:
"30 March 1996
Dear Melvin,
thank you for your letter with additional corrections and the very kind enclosures of the pages of Lees's (sic) diary. I have copied eveerythign acroos to Paul and Keith (the former having urged only two days ago that we all scour our files to make sure we'd got all the correctiosn you'd sent us).
How fascinating that Donston should have been converted by Victoria Woodhull! It would be interesting to know whether he was visiting New York or she was visiting England. The date is interesting too, confirming the time at which he started on his eccentric translation of the gospels.
We were extremely interested to learn that you have extracted an admission from McCormick that "eight little whores" is a modern forgery, and with your permission we would like to approach him on the question. as it seems to us something that should be made known to the public.
With all good wishes
Martin
cc Paul Begg and Keith Skinner."
It should be noted there is in this no mention of the Paley portion of Harris's letter. Nor, I understand did Harris hear anything else from Martin, or either of the other A-Z authors on the subject of Paley...
(if this is incorrect I will amend it. Martin - did you or your fellow authors contact Harris before proceeding to the next step as noted here?)
The next step was that the 'amended' version of the A-Z with its new and controversial '"readers warning" against Harris's unreliability was published.
On reading this entry about himself, Harris wrote to the publishers of the book asking for an explanation. In reply he was told that one of the reasons the authors decided to issue this warning was what they claimed to have been Harris's accusation of plagiarism against Bruce Paley
(I'm not aware as yet of what the other given reasons were, but I will post them as soon as I have that info. Or perhaps Martin or Paul could supply them?)
In reply to this Harris wrote the following (for which I have no date):
"In the first place you include my words on Bruce Paley, but this dispute is supposed to be over my published writing. You are warning readers to beware of texts open for them to read, but the Paley extract is not; it was never put into print by me, even though I have had the information for ten years. And it would never have been made public by me without my first approaching the author to ask for his comments. It was sent for you to check out, since I was assured that you knew the man. Since I never believed that you woud be stupid enough to make it an entry without first talking with your friend, my action was quite in order. As it is you now have the the full story of the remarkable coincidence involving Andrews and Paley, which may not have emerged without my letter. As for conscious plagiarism, you forget that I have always made allowances for the role of cryptomnesia, indeed I have written on and lectured on the importance of that phenomenon..."
This is all the documentation I have to date if more is forthcoming I will post anything relevant.
If any of these facts or incidents are incorrect then please inform me, and I will make any necessary changes. But can i suggest that these and any other relevant facts need to be well understood by all posters before comments are made.
I'd just like to remind people this is not a light matter and I csertainly didn't go into it lightly. We are discussing a man's professional standing and we are doing so in public. If it was me I'd want everyone to proceed with due consideration and care and not to make it an arena for inappropriate point-scoring. This certainly is not the forum for superficial partisan attitudes or for barging in and airing half-informed views.
Does everyone agree? |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 01:14 pm | | Martin/Rick
A quick word before I leave for an evening of fun and frivolity at a knock-out quiz - such thrills don't come often in a village!
Bruce Paley laid out the core argument of his thesis about Joseph Barnett in a magazine article published in 1982 and in a book in 1995. Paul Harrison presented his theory about Joseph Barnett in a book published in 1991. He claimed the theory as his own, being unaware of Bruce Paley’s article. I’m not sure but I don’t think either particularly fought over primacy. Their main dispute was over whose Joseph Barnett was the right one. Two researchers, Mark Madden and Neal Shelden independently wrote to Ripperana (no.6, 1993) confirming that Bruce Paley had located the right man.
Yaz, Caz, John.. much, much, much appreciation (like old times, eh Yaz?  |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 01:17 pm | | Alegria,
This is a bit off the topic of Melvin Harris, but quite in keeping with the new title of this thread. You keep stating that a person shouldn't accuse someone else of something unless they have adequate proof to back it up. That I can agree with. However, your actions don't seem to follow this belief. I was informed only today, by yourself, that emails have been circulated stating belief that I was posting under other names for some nefarious purpose. You seemed to feel you were justified in this as you never openly stated publicly that you believed I were these Scott/Alyssa people. Yet, you kept me in the dark about this while emailing others behind my back. You failed to email me first to discuss the possibility. I only found out when Ivor publicly posted your accusations on these boards and had to request that someone fill me in on the details, which you did. As I am completely innocent of these allegations there can be no question that absolutely no proof exists proving I have done anything underhanded. You never sought proof nor do you have any, yet you attack my character based on circumstantial 'evidence' of the loosest nature. You ride Martin constantly and accuse him of things you yourself are guilty of. There are very few arguments, if any, on these boards that you are not in the thick of. Whenever someone is upset with someone else you are somehow involved. Why is that? I've made a number of snide remarks in my time, but they are usually of a jocular nature, although sometimes controversial. You on the other hand are vindictive and seem to have a chip on your shoulder. It's obvious you WANT to believe that any negative remarks posted your way originate from only one person, but I'm here to tell you that's not the case. There's an old saying, 'To have power is to abuse it'. You have a certain amount of power on these boards and profess to wanting to end all discord, but you keep throwing fuel on any fires that begin to ignite, when you yourself are not the one igniting them. I think it's interesting that when a number of people on these boards started openly stating their disenchantment with you a set of 'rules' came up to put this to an end, but these 'rules' didn't extend to the sort of allegations you make. Basically, what I'm saying to you is to practice what you preach and stop calling the kettle black if you are to remain a pot. Not very eloquently put, but I hope my point is made.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 01:22 pm | | Karoline,
It is, indeed, a serious matter to challenge an author's reputation, and I will accept your serious concern for this principle when I find you expressing any concern for the damaging innuendo sent to the A-Z authors reflecting on Bruce Paley.
Otherwise, I do indeed fear that you are merely making debating points on behalf of whoever it is who keeps supplying you with documentation.
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 01:28 pm | | Martin Fido wrote:
For treatment to be libellous it has to be untrue. Paul has given you examples proving the exact truth of what we wrote, and you choose to ignore it and reassert that it is damaging and defamatory.
Martin,
I have scoured the posts and I can't find where either you or Paul have provided any evidence to justify a single one of your claims.
All I can find are allegations 'backed up' by more allegations.
You need to provide some facts.
You need to show that this LBC producer you talk about has a name and that he can confirm your story. You need to find the publisher you claim called Harris a liar and get him to confirm this is true. You need to give examples of Harris making statements in his books that are counter to all known facts, you need to give examples of him twisting people's thought-processes in the unique and dangerous and public way you claim
And you need to tell us what you meant when you said that we would find the justification for your condemnation of Melvin Harris in the pages of the Ripperana.
Martin, the man says he never wrote for Ripperana - so what is the deal here exactly? What did your words mean? Can you tell us?
I think you need to stop trying to play verbal gymnastic and find some facts to justify your very prolonged and very public atttacks on this one guy.
You have made stronger accusations against Harris than against any other author your book deals with. For you to take such a step you should have had powerful unique reasons. So wheer are they? Why don't you quote them?
One para from a private letter can't go near justifying this.
Personally i'm losing my ability to stomach much more of this whole thing. It's not the most edifying example of human nature I have to admit.
Karoline |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 01:34 pm | | Tom,
This will be my only response as I also told you that I as I would like the discord on the boards to stop that you were welcome to meet me in the chatroom, invite anyone you chose to witness and have a full out no holds barred assault if that was your wish. To answer your question, there were no 'emails circulating' accusing you in some conspiracy. I said that some people had drawn parallels to your behavior. Much like the men on this board who you say have emailed you discussing me and my appalling behavior. I don't believe you informed me of those either. Your snide remarks are perceived by you as jocular, mine as vindictive. You are entitled to your opinion. Since the 'rules' were posted, I have made no attacks or personal comments of any kind. You, however, have. If you wish to continue this discussion, email me with a time and a date to chat and you may invite all the 'others' who hate me and are allied against me. You can have a free-for-all if that is what you choose.
Two statements:
1. I do not feel that I am attacking Martin and I am sorry if Martin or anyone else perceives it that way. However, I will not let the threat of 'others' stop me from voicing my opinion.
2. There is no proof whatsover to suggest that Tom is Attherwaite/Scott/Alyssa or any other anonymous poster. |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 01:44 pm | | Yazoo,
If a man's character is attacked in public then his attackers have just got to back up their public accusation with public evidence.
To suggest we just look at Harris's books to find our answers is to miss the point completely.
It's not Harris's books that are being attacked - it's Harris himself. His competence, his reliability, his honesty - his private letters even.
And so far though the allegations keep coming and though Martin now seems to think he has the right to include me in his bouts of scatter-gun denunciation, and though there has been a great deal of stuff said by this sudden inrush of supporters - still we have the plain and undeniable truth - that Martin and Paul have aggressively alleged certain things about Harris and totally failed up to this point to produce any data to justify their allegations.
All the noise and back-slapping in the world is not going to change that.
But what the heck, there's only so many times that can be said. |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 01:50 pm | | Martin,
A few posts ago, you wrote:
"If Melvin will publicly state through Peter Birchwood or anyone else that he has never believed Mrs Harrison to be a dishonest scholar; that he accepts her complete integrity in everything she has written about the diary, and that he regrets that it has ever been suggested that he said or implied anything other - nay, he may go further and deplore the wickedness of Tricky Fido in thus maligning him! - if he will thus stake his reputation on Mrs Harrison's good name, them I will unhesitatingly withdraw everything I have said about his references to her and apologise."
On Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 05:26 pm, on the The Diary of Jack the Ripper/ General Discussion/ Maybrick/Jack's watch? message board, Melvin Harris wrote:
"Finally, the paper punch jibe must have originated with Mrs Harrison and shows her to be a mean-minded and empty character. But then we have known all along that she was out of her depth and not to be trusted with any matter involving the sound assessment of evidence."
Now, I could not find the original "paper punch jibe" referred to here, even after running a keyword search of all message texts for the phrase "paper punch," which kicked out only this one by Melvin. I'm sure others might remember its origins. But this is not my point. I am willing to overlook the insulting language.
My point rests more in the phrase:
"But then we have known all along that she was out of her depth and not to be trusted with any matter involving the sound assessment of evidence."
I suppose it comes down to how one wishes to read the phrase "not to be trusted." Perhaps (just perhaps) Melvin simply meant her assessments were likely to be mistaken because she was so "out of her depth," whatever that means. Perhaps he was simply saying she was incompetent, and not actually untrustworthy. This, I think, would be the generous reading. Of course, it does not account for the phrase "empty character."
In any case, I do not think it is very likely, given this sort of language and phrasing from Melvin, that he might now be willing to, as you say, "stake his reputation on Mrs Harrison's good name." I hope I am mistaken about this. It is certainly possible that Melvin would be willing to clarify that he only meant Shirley was not a very good scholar, and that suggesting she could "not be trusted" was not meant to imply anything more critical than that.
I hope so.
--John |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 02:05 pm | | Thank you Martin, and especially you Karoline,-- you went to a lot of trouble to make things clear. I won't be asking any more questions about this,--I don't mind admitting it's a bit over my head.
Regards, Rick |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 02:38 pm | | | The A-Z entry does state that his earlier works were fair and the only new entry that was contained in it was True Face which was his latest at the time (I think) and since Yazoo has also said that he was bothered by parts of it, I am going to give it a read tonight. Will be back to post more when I have. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 02:42 pm | | Karoline
"It's not Harris's books that are being attacked -it's Harris himself. His competence, his reliability, his honesty - his private letters even."
This board:- Paul Begg on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 11:31 am, By Caroline Anne Morris on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 12:10 pm: - are responses to your charges.
The Ripper File pages 147-152 for comments about the competence, reliability and honesty of authors. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 04:28 pm | | Alegria
I don't want to get into the horrors going on between you and Tom, and obviously I don't want to anatagonise Tom who implies some sympathy for me. But I must in fairness say that while I was initially irritated by what seemed your inability to comprehend a point I was making, I have subsequently realized that you didn't accept it because you and I hold certain different moral principles - and goodness me, these boards aren't, I hope, a place where we are all going to push proselytising homilectics at each other! In fact, I have in the end been happy that when disputing with me you are genuinely trying to find out what my position is; that you take in points I am making and add them to your assessment of the case (which is not the same as finally accepting or agreeing with them); that you stick to the point you have raised, and don't go haring off into new fields when you are stuck for an answer; and that I can't complain of your treatment of me and my opinions and actions. You started with a genuine feeling that I was treating somebody else unjustly. You asked me to explain myself. Whether you agree with my explanation or not, you seem satisfied that I have tried to answer; not dodged and ducked your arguments. And you are not nagging at me to accept your initial position come hell or high water. (As I am not nagging you to abandon it. I think we probably both agree with Yaz that the accusation is there in the A-Z. Melvin's books and postings are there for anybody to read and see whether the accusation seems justified. And we don't need to bang on about it for ever.)
I'd have to throw in a sort of solicitor's letter 'Without Prejudice', though, to say that I have no idea what you've been up to that made you enemies like Tom on other boards!
Karoline,
I wish I could say the same for you. But I really cannot say whether it is mere stupidity, incompetent searching, or intellectual dishonesty which makes you claim that after scouring the boards you have failed to discover Paul Begg's citation of the Fact that MH accused Martin Howells and Keith Skinner of deliberately using a source they knew to be unreliable, offset against the Fact that Howells and Skinner had themselves carefully pointed out the unreliability to their readers and explained why they thought a part of it escaped the taint.
I do not 'allege' that Melvin Harris distorted the order of my research, erroneously stating what a part of my thinking was along the way, and in complete defiance of my published account of it, producing a description which has been used by other people to claim that my rsearch was incompetent. Paul's posting gives you the reference to Harris's misrepresentation. I believe that in an earlier posting I gave the reference to my printed account of what I actually did an why: it is on pp.222-228 in the paperback edition of 'The Crimes Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper'. These are citations of fact: actual places where, without question, Harris's 'postulation of another writer's thought process was wildly wrong and actually conflicted with impeccable written evidence'; and where he believed he had perceived chicanery and made demonstrably unjustified assertions'. I have already apologized for the fact that without books I cannot give chapter and verse on the misrepresntation of people other than myself.
I am weary of answering your questions while you cavalierly disregard mine. Your silence over my invitation that you consider how you would feel if your work were described slightingly as 'your theory' in quotes, with the implication that you had lifted it unacknowledged from come one else; and how you would feel if this were supported with a reference to your research methods and a cynical 'Ah, well!' inevitably leads me to suspect that intllectual dishonesty rather than stupidity lies behind your postings. I can imagine no writer on earth who would not be outraged to think of such things being said behind his back - let alone being included in a list of things for possible publication. If you are going to pretend that the Harris passage is mere innocent presentation of facts which responsible editors might want to consider, and there is no underhandedness about pushing them toward the public domain in that way, then I respectfully suggest that you are making me wonder how you ever managed to write a publishable book about Lewis Carroll.
So, as Caz I thknk said on another board: you show me yours and I'll show you mine. You tell me outright that you don't think Melvin intended any damaging conclusion about Bruce to be drawn and, with your hand on your heart, you wouldn't have the slightest objection to learning that exactly the same language had been used about your own work behind your back; you tell me that you think that open publication of a critical comment that can be checked and, if it deserves it, rejected by any reader, is identical with offering a writer a denigratory titbit to publish about somebody else; you tell me that I should have been perfectly justified in repeating the disgraceful story I heard about Melvin to other people withut letting him know I'd heard it - and I might answer any further postings you address to me.
John - In all fairness to MH, I'd have to say that my reading of 'not to be trusted with any matter involving the sound assessment of evidence' suggests an attack on Shirley's competence and not her character. But for MH to call her 'a mean-minded and empty character' can only be described as the rage of Caliban pretending to see his own face in Shirley's glass!
I imagine the 'paper-punch' thing must mean that Shirley said somewhere that someone couldn't punch his or her way out of a paper bag. It might be in one of her books, or answers to attacks in journals, or even quoted - or misquoted - by Feldy. Obviously, without the original we don't know whether whatever she said was justified or not. but I'd lay a reasonable sized wager it will have been a ladylike utterance and not the sort of enfuriated splutter that has been thrown at her.
All the best to all,
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 05:01 pm | | Martin,
Agreed.
By the way, for the record, I managed to track down at least some trace of the notorious "paper-punch jibe." Melvin was apparently referring to a claim made concerning the way a certain test was conducted and whether it was under sterile conditions and what significance there might be, if any, to the fact that a hole punch bought that morning was used in the test. But it appears to have been Paul Begg that was discussing the paper-punch and not Shirley (who perhaps expressed some sort of surprise over the punch being used, or offered Paul this information, I'm not sure) and Paul seems quite properly mystified as to why Shirley gets blamed for this by Melvin.
Paul wrote on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 05:08 am:
"The hole punch stuff is becoming increasingly odd. [...] Barry Street simply stated that Dr. Simpson's tests were conducted in sterile conditions. I stated that I wasn't qualified to comment, but that since she attempted to punch a sample with a hole punch bought that morning from a newsagent, maybe the conditions weren't all that sterile. I'm sure everyone here understands what I meant, but if Harris thinks 'sterile' even embraces taking a sample with a rusty hole punch, I am happy to stand corrected. But I still don't understand why anyone being surprised by this should be described in the way Harris chose to describe Shirley Harrison."
It does seem therefore that Melvin was at least unnecessarily harsh, deliberately insulting, and not at all scholarly in his remarks concerning Shirley:
"Finally, the paper punch jibe must have originated with Mrs Harrison and shows her to be a mean-minded and empty character. But then we have known all along that she was out of her depth and not to be trusted with any matter involving the sound assessment of evidence."
And, Martin, speaking of enfuriated splutter and such, look soon for a lesson about just how much being rude can pay here in the US, over on the primate board.
--John |
Author: Chas Gilbert
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 06:00 pm | | | There is a need for some clarity in these discussions, everything seems to be very confused. |
Author: Chas Gilbert
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 06:02 pm | | | I do not understand Mr Begg's statement that the Paley v. Harrison dispute was over the identity of Barnett and not over who came first with the theory. |
Author: Karoline L
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 06:06 pm | | Martin,
I'd like you please to consider your words to me in your last post, beginning with "I really cannot say whether it is mere stupidity, incompetent searching, or intellectual dishonesty which makes you claim...." and ending in "you are making me wonder how you ever managed to write a publishable book about Lewis Carroll"
What am I supposed to think of someone who can say stuff like that?
I think I should remind you that I am a perfect stranger to you. You haven't read my book, you know nothing about me. Yet you have the incredible ill-manners and conceit to believe you have the right to offer this critique of my qualities merely because I have asked you some questions you prefer not to answer.
Let me try and explain to you where I am coming from:
I am not completely aware of all the evidence in the situation between you and your two fellow authors and Melvin Harris. It's not my fight and I have no personal stake in it. I just wanted to support the stand that was being taken here for some kind of fair play.
I asked you to provide some data for me because I wanted to get a fair and even handed picture. That's all. I've asked you three times today for some evidence to back up those very specific allegations you made. I'm not claiming you don't have good reason for saying everything you are saying - maybe you do. I'm just asking you to tell me what those reasons are.
The Skinner /Howells stuff is a point, and I apologise for having missed it, but it's not the specific I asked for, and it leaves more questions unanswered than ever. We need verbatim quotations, sourced to the book or whatever they come from. We need you to tell us who this publisher is who can confirm your claim that he called Harris a liar. We need you to tell us why you implied Harris had written damning stuff in Ripperana - when he says he's never written for that mag at all .
If your side of the case is powerful, then show it here. Give us the evidence and the reasons that will make us think "oh yes, I see where he's coming from". Don't just bluster and abuse. it does you no credit.
But I don't want to keep asking questions just to give you further excuses to work off whatever feelings you like on me. So I won't say this again. I suppose you might think of that as a victory for you. But it's not one I'd be proud of if I was you. I hope you take my advice and reconsider your position a little.
It would also appreciate an apology for that unpleasant stuff in your last post. And I'd appreciate it if you never used such language to me again.
Karoline Leach |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 06:07 pm | | Martin, Alegria, et al,
First of all, there is no one in the world I hate. I haven't used that word. I have no enemies and am no one's enemy. Martin, I'm glad you have found Alegria such an agreeable opponent in your debates. Those of us with less of a reputation/notoriety haven't been so fortunate. Alegria, your email to me stated that if I wanted to insult you some more to do so in emails. My last post was not an attack, just stating my case, so to speak. Why would I want to go to the chat room? You would just ban me from it. Besides, whatever we would say would be off-topic and 'inane', and We ALL know that's against the chatroom 'rules'. Have you ever seen me in the chatroom? No. Although, I am considering dropping in some time when I don't have anything else to do. If you're there, cool. I have no need to have an insult fest with you or anybody. Your actions and reputation speaks for itself. There's nothing I could add to it. You say you received emails about me. I'm sure a couple of your girlfriends did draw parallels after Kazzi wrote that post. I'm confused, though...I thought I was Scott/Alyssa. Now I'm Alyssa/Atherwaite. Who am I NOT? You say you have no proof that I'm Alyssa/Atherwaite. Does this mean that you DO have proof that I'm Scott? I'd love to see it, and I'd lover EVERYBODY to see it. Also, if emails weren't circulating, how did Ivor come to know of your suspicions about me? It sounds like a little more than you 'received' a few emails. Another thing, I said I received emails but I didn't say they were all about you specifically or anyone specifically, just a certain demographic that seems to be taking over the boards and bringing about this trouble.
To all,
I never hang out on the Diary threads because I think they're a waste of time. I've looked over a few and it seems to me that the 'stars' of the Casebook are the ones causing the biggest trouble! Why do any of you care who Martin's LBC producer was? Is Melvin paying you to defend him? Why does he post through a third party? Why does he post this stuff at all, or Martin for that matter? You guys are smart, rich, famous, and respected amongst your peers. Act like it. Melvin obviously has a quick temper and a sharp tongue. Martin seems to as well, but hides it better. I remember one time Martin went off on me and I didn't know why he was so touchy. After reading this stuff I can see why. There's a lot of good posters wasting their energy on the Diary threads. Come back to the Ripper threads where you're needed!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. I have to admit I agree that the original title of this thread 'The Reliability of Melvin Harris' wasn't too cool. I must also admit that the current title is a bit misleading considering the content. |
Author: Chas Gilbert
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 06:39 pm | | | I can't understand how Paul Harrison did not get a warning with his name in the A to Z when he was using Paley's idea for a suspect and made lots of mistakes in his book. |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 06:48 pm | | IMHO, "Chas. Gilbert" posting above, Ivor Edwards, "Ivor Q.U. Estion," and "anon" who posted here last year, are all the same person.
David |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 06:59 pm | | Hi Tom,
Just a quick response. Some of us working on the Diary board truly do believe that there is a serious historical review of this event (the creation and dissemination of and reaction to this alleged diary) taking place, from which, eventually, we might learn things about both what happened and who was involved (in the interest of accuracy and justice) and about what sort of procedures might be followed if such a thing ever happens again. And since many of the players involved in the events are still very much with us and the information available is continually changing, it is an exciting case to study. Also, since the personal reputations of people still living and even potential legal consequences for some remain at stake, I think it's important that we be as slow and careful and meticulous as possible in our work on this issue and I'm afraid that makes the reading sometimes rather ponderous. I do think, though, that the lessons we learn from working on the history of the diary and on working for an accurate account of its production carry over into all aspects of Ripper studies.
Consequently, I am not prepared to abandon all hope over there just yet.
But thanks for invitation to venture elsewhere on these boards. I will try.
--John |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 07:22 pm | | Tom - It took a little time for Alegria to become acceptable: I admit I found her tone a bit schoolmarmy at first, and you are quite right to say I will react irritably to an offensive tone.
Karoline,
Sorry. I'm still not answering yours till you answer mine.
David
As I understand the reputation of Ivor Q Estion, I'd be extremely surprised if he really is Ivor Edwards. I started debate on another board with Mr Edwards when he reacted fierily to my calling Melvin's 'the dotty Donston theory'. And - (I forget why) - he added some comments on David Canter which seemed to me personal rather than professional. He accepted with great courtesy my suggestion that discussion should be kept to the historical points at issue, and I have thoroughly enjoyed disagreeing with, learning from, and exchanging opinions with him ever since. I notice that Ivor has a quick and angry response if he feels he's been insulted. I can't criticise him for that. So do I. I just don't have the patience of a John Omlor or a Paul Begg.
As I understand it, Ivor Q is more of an insulter or niggler, and doesn't stick around for debate if he meets genuine difference of opinion.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 08:35 pm | | To Tom Wescott:
It pains me to see you write thus about the chatroom. Had you ever been in the Casebook chat room or the Casebook Productions chat room used subsequently, you would know WHY some rules are necessary now.
Those who have operator status, including Alegria, have been warned about abusing it. Indeed, one such person has already caused the entire group of operators to be busted down to the lowest functional level because of abuse of power.
Booting/banning are done only in extreme cases, and NOT because we disagree with your ideas, opinions, or philosophy. The very essence of the chat room is to discuss these issues, and there have in the past been some very fruitful sessions about some very controversial topics.
If an 'inane' conversation occurs, I try to steer it back to JTR-related issues. We often discuss other topics and subjects in the same general category as JTR, such as the JonBenet Ramsey murder. Although I always strive to keep the conversation relevant to JTR, I go with the flow - if people want to chat about something else, like sports, then vox populi vox dei. Those who do not care to participate are free to leave and often do under these conditions.
If you wish to engage Alegria in open debate, that can be arranged whereby all operators will be de-opped for the occasion. To settle these acrimonious issues and bring some harmony back to the boards, I am willing to moderate, to turn off WordKick, CapsKick, and all other protection scripts and bots. In other words, we can allow a no-holds-barred session if only it will serve some end purpose here.
Any and all others involved in this ongoing saga are likewise invited. If I receive notice of any interest, I shall post a time and date amenable to all.
If not now, when?
WTM |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 08:55 pm | | To David Radka, You have made a comment that I have been posting under the names, Ivor Q U Estion
and Anon. I have no need to post under any other name but my own.I treat your remark with the contemp it deserves.And I for one want to see the evidence you have for making such a false claim.How dare you make such a false accusation againest me.If you check the posts you will find my comments on postings relating to Ivor Q U Estion.What is you game, are you trying to provoke me? This matter of people like you who make such false statements has been under debate I ask that you apologise to me for making such a false statement. I am most annoyed to say the least. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 09:09 pm | | | Martin. Thank you for your true and fair comments. It is a pity that D Radka did not show the same insight into my character.Due to the stupidity of the accusation I feel that this could have been done with malice to provoke me, and to get me thrown off the boards taking into concideration my usual response to such attacks and the new rules that have been imposed. |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 09:34 pm | | Oh come on, Ivor. Loosen up your tie a little bit. Some of the comments made by anon were insightful. How do you figure I'm provoking you by what I said? Perhaps you're a very provokable person to start with.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 09:52 pm | | | I dont care how insightful his comments were.It may come as a shock to you but some people dont like to be accused of things they are not responsible for and I am one of them. What possible reason could you have to state that I was posting under other names.Maybe I am a very provokable person but that has got bugger all to do with the fact that you stated that I have been posting under several names when I have not. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 10:02 pm | | David,
I have to admit I am quite shocked and surprised by your posting your opinion regarding Ivor. I suppose I'm a little sensitive to this considering I was recently accused of the same thing. Even though I'm not familiar with Ivor Q.U.estion or anon since they were posting during my hiatus from the board I have trouble believing that Ivor is one and the same as them. I think people assume that because of the 'Ivor' name being the same. Fortunately, no one has accused me of being Tom Slemen! I have my own theory about Ivor. You are correct, I don't believe he is who he says he is. I believe in reality he is...Roslyn D'Onston reincarnated!!! There you have it, the absolute truth! I received a letter from Vittoria Cremer's great-great-great-great grand daughter describing her lesbian lover's affair with Ivor and I am absolutely convinced of this fact. After all, D'Onston always wanted people to BELIEVE he was Jack the Ripper and Ivor is writing a book making such a claim, so the truth is obvious...Ivor Edwards IS Roslyn D'Onston. I just hope that Ivor will have the courage to admit this publicly. After all, I swallowed my pride and admitted that I am in fact Joseph Sickert, so Ivor should follow suit. One day, perhaps.
Walter,
Having a shouting match with Alegria in the chatroom is the further thing from my mind when considering what to do with my time. I have never suggested that I was interested in this. However, I very much appreciated your post and your invitation. I will indeed check out the chatroom, but only as a normal contributor like everyone else.
Martin,
Did Melvin Harris really get seduced by an American woman? Why did he turn her down? THIS is the really interesting stuff.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 12:55 am | | Hi Tom,And thanks for that.But I am really annoyed with you for blowing my cover.I had better come clean now that you have let the cat out of the bag. YES I am Roslyn D'Onston and Collins,Cremers and myself did romp 3 in a bed.So what,can you suggest a better way for a chap to spend his time.The booze and the drugs I also enjoyed.As for ripping up whores I was led to believe I was onto a good thing but it wasnt so.
So where does a chap go from there.I guess I had better dump the name Edwards now and use my real name. |
Author: Chas Gilbert
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 01:22 am | | I asked simple questions and they were not answered. The reason I asked was because of the following letter in the Book & Magazine Collector No. 110 of May 1993:-
JACK THE RIPPER
Dear Editor,
Regarding your article on Jack the Ripper books, I would appreciate it if you would make it clear that I - and not Paul Harrison - originated the theory that Joseph Barnett was the Ripper in an article entitled 'We Name Jack the Ripper', which was included in the April 1982 issue of True Crime. This appeared nine years before Paul Harrison's book was published, and was extensively discussed in both Colin Wilson & Robin Odell's Jack the Ripper: Summing Up and Verdict (Bantam 1987) and Peter Underwood's Jack the Ripper: 100 Years of Mystery (Blandford 1987), among other works.
Curiously, Mr. Harrison quoted Peter Underwood's book in his bibliography, but apparently didn't read the seven or so pages devoted to my theory, as he failed to acknowledge my work in his study. As Paul Begg has written to me: "[Harrison's] failure to to recognise your own contribution was reprehensible, but to further claim that he had no knowledge of a primary research source on his/your theory damns him even further."
At the moment, after 10 years of further research, I am on the point of finishing my own book, and am looking for a publisher. I have uncovered a considerable amount of new evidence that firmly points to Joseph Barnett having been Jack the Ripper, evidence that is thoroughly backed by documentary proof (one of Paul Harrison's mistakes is that he actually investigated the wrong Joseph Barnett). I have also traced Barnett's family tree right up to the present day, and located living relatives of the man I believe to be the Ripper. No other researcher has carried his investigations this far.
Anyone who wishes to know more about my theory, or who has any relevant information, should write to me, Bruce Paley, at: 66 Loampit Vale, Lewisham, London SE13 7SN.
Thank you very much for helping to clear up this matter.
Bruce Paley, London.
Thank you for your letter, Mr. Paley. Although I agree that writers should always acknowledge their debts to previous researchers, I should point out that it has long been known that Barnett was one of the chief suspects in the Ripper case at the time of the murders. Indeed, he is mentioned as such in the first edition of Don Rumbelow's The Complete Jack the Ripper which was published in 1975, seven years before your article appeared in True Crime magazine. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 02:00 am | | Hello Chas
The style of your posts remind me very much of others pseudonymously posted here – informed but short and without comment on your meaning or intent. Now, I said “He [Paul Harrison] claimed the theory as his own, being unaware of Bruce Paley’s article. I’m not sure but I don’t think either particularly fought over primacy.” So Bruce Paley’s letter to the magazine means – what? That in May 1993 Bruce Paley asserted primacy, as was his right? The relevance of this is...? |
Author: Chas Gilbert
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 02:07 am | | Surely the relevance for you is obvious Mr. Begg, have you forgotten your damning words in this letter to Paley about Harrison not acknowledging primacy and if Harrison is as 'reprehensible' as you state in your letter to Paley, why is there no warning about this in Harrison's entry in the A-Z?
For Mr. Melvin Harris the relevance is in the fact that Paley is obviously quoting his April 1982 article as establishing his primacy with this theory. Thus Mr. Harris makes a reasonable and valid suggestion when he points out the earlier, 1977, Andrews primacy. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 02:23 am | | | No I have not forgotten my words. Are you suggesting that they are wrong? And why should the "A to Z" comment on Paul Harrison's failure to acknowledge Bruce Paley's primacy? Do you think this has some profound interest to readers of the "A to Z" or is something they really ought to know? |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 02:28 am | | | Oh, and where did Melvin Harris make it clear that he was refuting a claim made by Bruce Paley in a magazine article in 1993? If that was all Melvin Harris was saying, then what possible bearing did Bruce Paley being a New York US book importer have? Why did he say "Ah well!". And why did he subsequently observe that he didn't intend deliberate plagiarism but was aware of and had written about cryptomnesia, a claim which in itself indicates that he did intend to imply some form of plagiarism (for if he never intended any such suggestion, a plain denial would have sufficed). This really is getting very silly. |
Author: Chas Gilbert
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 04:07 am | | Mr. Begg,
You will be pleased to know that I will not post in this debate after this.
Yes, I am suggesting that your words may be wrong. As I understand it Harrison always denied that he 'stole' Paley's suspect idea, whereas Paley always maintained that he had.
You clearly side with Paley, and you 'damn' Harrison for his actions. Of course, Harrison may well have taken his 'Barnett was the Ripper' idea either from the fact that Barnett was a contemporary suspect anyway, or from the Andrews novel which had been in the public domain a lot longer than Paley's publication of the idea. So, before condemning Paul Harrison in your letter to Paley, did you check with Harrison to make sure that what Paley claimed was right and he really did 'steal' it from Paley, or if he had developed it innocently? For, if you did not, you are guilty of the same thing you are accusing Melvin Harris of, his statement being in an equally private letter to Mr. Fido. Clearly we need your answer to this, for Mr. Paley placed your 'damning' comments on Mr. Harrison in the public domain in a national magazine. What Mr. Harris said to Mr. Fido remained in a private letter not intended for publication. Anyway, as I have said, it was a perfectly reasonable thing for Mr. Harris to believe and suggest in a private letter anyway.
This action of Harrison's that you have labelled 'reprehensible' and roundly 'damned' is accompanied by a major error in Harrison's book, and other errors, but there is a mere four-line entry to Harrison's name in the A-Z with no mention of any of this, surely if you felt that Harrison was a 'reprehensible' user of other people's ideas it is odd that you do not mention it in view of the unworthy entry on Mr. Harris?
Yours in bewilderment. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 05:26 am | | Mr Gilbert
I can't say whether I am pleased or not that you won't post further on this topic. Anyone capable of laying their hands on documentary evidence of such age as Bruce Paley's letter must have a fine collection of Ripper documents and opinions based on such material evidence are always welcome by me. I am, however, uncertain that your name really is Chas Gilbert and I suspect that you are someone who has posted, usually against me, under several different pseudonymns. This I do not like. If I am wrong, though, please do accept my sincere apologies.
I have not, did not, would not, and was not accusing Paul Harrison of stealing or otherwise appropriating in any way, shape or form Bruce Paley’s idea. In my letter to Bruce Paley I was commenting on Paul Harrison’s six years of research which failed to turn up an important primary source – hence “to further claim that he had no knowledge of a primary research source on his/your theory damns him even further”}. In other words, it was bad enough to not have acknowledged Bruce’s contribution (and please note ‘contribution’) but worse still to have admitted ignorance of it. And I submit that the words ‘his/your theory’ demonstrate that I was not attaching either primacy or appropriation to the theory at all, but fairly crediting it to both men.
Since I did not feel that “Harrison was a 'reprehensible' user of other people's ideas”, your concluding paragraph isn’t valid. However, Paul Harrison’s erroneous identification of Joseph Barnett is referred to under ‘Joseph Barnett’, which seems the most appropriate place for the information to be placed and seems to me to be sufficient comment on Mr Harrison’s research. If Mr Harrison was as influential a writer and as noted and respected a professional debunker as Melvin Harris, a word of warning might have been required had he shown a propensity for occasionally offering his own opinion as fact. He isn’t, so it wasn’t.
And I would entirely agree with you about private letters, but it seems to be forgotten here that Melvin Harris was inviting us to publish the content of that letter, which in my opinion casts a significantly different light on the privacy of the letter and the freedom of expression allowable within it.
Sincerely
Paul |
Author: Karoline L
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 05:47 am | | I think it's deeply regrettable that this thread has turned into a generalised squabble, since I think it began with the best of intentions and had actually got near to making some sense of the chronic difficulties beetween Harris on the one side and Fido, Begg and Skinner on the other, that have poisoned so much of the debate here on such a variety of topics.
I've looked through a lot of the documentation that seems to lie at the heart of the matter - much of which I've also posted here (with permission). I would have liked to see more of the evidence, but some of it hasn't been sent on to me despite my request, and Martin Fido has steadfastly declined to provide anything solid in the form of letters, or whatever to back up key points that he has charged against Harris.
So, what follows is a synthesis of what I think the current data (and the absence thereof) tells me about what is going on
I've looked briefly into the Howells/Skinner issue, which Paul adduced as evidence of Harris's unfair assessment of other writers' opinions. and so far as I can judge, Howells and Skinner denounce McCormick as a fraud and yet proceed to then quote him as a source to help back up their theory.
This looks like questionable methodology to say the least. If McCormick's credibility is in serious doubt, then clearly he can't be quoted as a source for anything without some form of independent corroboration. If it was in my field I would question the wisdom of anyone attempting to do that, so I see nothing wrong in Harris pointing this out - if this is what he did.
Before I can assess whether in my opinion Harris overstepped the mark and was more derogatory than necessary I'd have to read his remarks, and I don't have them
Could anyone post his comments on the Howells/Skinner issue to see whether they do constitute a misrepresentation of the authors' thought-processes?
Re. the Paley business
I think the letter from Paul Begg helpfully posted by the newcomer here makes it clear that Paley was indeed publicly charging Paul Harrison with 'stealing' his ideas, and that at least one member of the A-Z team was aware of that when they received Harris's letter.
I think the fact that there was this public dispute between Paley and Harrison over primacy of their Barnett theory does significantly affect the way we should look at Harris's comment on the subject.
If the debate was currently in the public domain, and if Paul Begg was commenting on it, then I can understand why Harris would think the A-Z team might need the info about this 1977 novel in order to fully understand the situation for their entry on Joseph Barnett.
I therefore think there is no suggestion of improper conduct on Harris's part here.
I can't comment on Martin Fido's allegation that Harris's impropriety is revealed in the pages of Ripperana because, despite repeated requests from me, Fido has not produced any evidence about this matter at all.
All I have is Harris's statement that he has never contributed to Ripperana, which if true seems to make Fido's allegation very hard to understand. This is all I can say until any further data is forthcoming.
The same goes for Fido's allegations of tampering with radio programs etc. They don't currently merit being considered as serious allegations, because despite repeated invitations, Fido has declined to back any of them up with any evidence.
Okay, what do I conclude from all this?
From my observation I would conclude that Harris tends to be a more than usually factually accurate reporter (at least so far I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise). He seems very meticulous in quoting his sources, very meticulous in researching his facts. So I suspect the allegations of wild inaccuracy to be unmerited.
On the other hand I am also aware that Harris tends to express his (usually very rational) judgements in very extreme and often hostile language that probably doesn't do proper service to the strength of his case. I think anyone who opts for such a means of expression must expect to antagonise people to some degree, and I have to say he has shown small willingness to amend his style even when its potential for difficulties has been pointed out.
I can quite see how those he criticises for their errors of research might end up feeling very angry and stung, yet powerless to respond since the man is in fact telling the truth - just doing so with insufficient politeness and tact.
I think therefore that Harris is at last partly to blame here. If he were able to express his very good observations in more prudent language I suspect this situation might not currently exist. At the very least he ought to have the sense not to hand his opponents such an obvious stick with which to beat him.
However I also believe, judging from what I have read, that the A-Z team have been guilty of considerable blurring of distinction between private resentments and public judgements.
There is undeniably a 'feud' between them and Harris, and it would have been better if they had honestly admitted this to be the case, rather than seeking to cloak their expressions of antagonism in a guise of objective analysis.
They have given the impression, particularly here on the internet, that their personal view of Harris is a general one (Fido has indeed alleged that Harris is the sole cause of all discord in the discipline). I think this is unfair. To the best of my knowledge, Harris has perfectly close and friendly relations with most other researchers and authors in this field (Stewart Evans, Don Rumbelow, Nick Warren, etc. I believe would testify to that).
And while Harris's ascerbic commentaries are undeniably bound to raise hackles, it must also be said that both Fido and Begg are very quick to become aggressive with their perceived opponents (indeed Fido's recent flurries of abusiveness here strike me as extraordinary in a man of supposed maturity), so it ill behoves either of them to suggest that all ill-feeling is of Harris's creation.
It's also clear that this same personal antagonism has persuaded the A-Z authors to simplify and exaggerate the nature of their grievances against Harris so that a dangerously distorted picture was beginning to emerge.
I understand the nature of some of their anger and resentment against Harris, yet I cannot agree that it was remotely acceptable for them to express their anger in the pages of an important reference work. And to be frank I think their subsequent efforts to 'justify' some of their more outrageous behaviour has reflected little credit on them
I think the A-Z entry is an unfortunate expression of personal antipathy not a calm and reasonable assesment of Harris's qualities as an author. I think it was ill-judged for the three authors to have exploited the power of their authorship to make such an entry and rather poor of them to refuse to accept that an error of judgement has occurred
I know that it is the axiom of politicians to "never apologise and never explain", but it is not a particularly edifying spectacle to see that face-saving tactic being put into practice here so blatantly.
To sum up, as someone has observed to me privately, there is fault on both sides.
Harris does not seem to be guilty of false accusations or of factual misrepresentation (to the best of my current knowledge) - but he is guilty of using unnecessarily inflammatory and derogatory language which has assisted this situation in igniting.
The A-Z team are, in my view, guilty of misrepresenting facts, and of permitting personal feelings to affect their professional judgement.
I suggest that no one involved in beginning or prolonging this sad business is as fully acquainted with the rules of politeness and prudent debate as might be desired. Indeed I have been rather shocked at the immaturity displayed by several contributors here who could be expected to know much better.
Pending any further discoveries, I don't have anything more to say really.
best wishes
Karoline. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 06:08 am | | Hello Karoline
Have you read the relevant material in The Ripper Legacy?
Would you kindly clearly and concisely substantiate your statement that “Paley was indeed publicly charging Paul Harrison with 'stealing' his ideas” - I'm afraid I can only actually see Paley claiming primacy and charging Harrison with poor research, not with theft.
And can you also please show where it is stated that I knew about Bruce Paley’s letter to the Book and Magazine Collector and also cite the respective dates of that article and of Melvin Harris’s letter to the author's of the A to Z?
Many thanks |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 06:09 am | | Karoline,
You plagiarized me! Actually, you didn't because I hadn't written that yet, although that is exactly what I was going to write, though probably not as succinctly and clearly as you did (as evidenced by this sentence).
Anyway, since I don't want to plagiarize Karoline, and I agree with all the key points that she made, I too have nothing further to add here.
The new Paley letter is, in my opinion, unfortunate to the A-Z case and does seem to be the same thing they were accusing Harris of doing.
I would like to add that the way the thread degenerated, was unfortunate and (as in the whole of the matter) fault was on both sides. I would like to note one more thing, although A-Z 3 has said "we might have worded things better" or "we could have phrased it differently", that I have seen there has been no direct statement, "We should not have said it like that." Might and could have are qualifiers and don't seem appropriate in this situation.
With regards,
Ally |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 25 April 2001 - 06:28 am | | The new Paley letter is, in my opinion, unfortunate to the A-Z case and does seem to be the same thing they were accusing Harris of doing.
In what way?
Oh, and has Bruce Paley otherwise shown an inclination to reach the worst possible interpretation of someone's thoughts or actions? |
|
|
|
|
