Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 01:12 pm |        |
Hi Judy,
the answer is very easy: the owner of a url is responsible for what is said. He can even be made responsible for pages he is linked up with. If the owner invites people to post he is responsible. If he allows other people to design and fill the pages he is responsbile.
And so I can fully understand Stephens posting and support it fully.
Yoirs,
Philip |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 01:24 pm | |
Ivor,
You know I sure agree with you with respect to Radka. Why he is allowed to say what he does about you on the site is totally redictulous. Why he gets away with so much is incredible while you for unknown reasons, was barred. Your previous lifestyle or mistakes, whatever is not Radka's business or any one else's for that matter, outside of the law I guess. I would not let him get away with calling you a con Man on an
open site like this one. It could hurt the sale of your book, and should not be allowed under any circumstances. I don't even bother to read his posts for obvious reasons. You should go to the owners of this site and have him put in line. He should have been barred long ago, not you. What he said re you being a con man is defamatory and it should not have to be the price you have to pay in order to post here. I am appalled by this behavior and the fact that it is allowed.
regards julie |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 01:39 pm | |
Christian,
I totally disagree with you with respect to expecting Ivor to take in stride what Radka said about him. I wouldn't. Especially if I had a new book on the market, and know that the public that would buy the book may be posting here.
Radka is a wimp. A CANDY A**. BUT MOST IMPORTANT HE IS RUDE.
If you are going to direct a message to stop the tone of the messages between them, then address it where it belongs to Radka.
I apologize if my tone sounds angry, It is, but it is not directed at you. The comments Radka made against Ivor were totally uncalled for, and should not be allowed by casebook.
regards
julie |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 01:44 pm | |
Thank you for that, Philip; I guess that does make some sense, in a skewed sort of way. I obviously agree with you, and with Stephen's post. And while Julie has the right to support Ivor against David, I have the right to support Stephen against BOTH Ivor AND David. I don't believe for one minute that controversy will hurt the sale of ANY book...witness the Cornwell tempest of late.
All that said, I retreat to read and NOT to post. NO WAY do I get drawn into a slanging match that best should be pursued elsewhere....say on a Field of Honour? Makes about as much sense.....
J |
Author: Ally
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 01:45 pm | |
Julie,
1. Ivor himself frequently boasts of his criminal activity and subsequent incarceration on these very boards. He considers his time spent rubbing elbows with the lowest of society to have made him uniquely suited to understanding the criminal mind. It is SUPREMELY hypocritcal for him to feign indignation that someone else brought it up.
2. Ivor started the name calling; does that little fact interfere with your warped little perception of what you think is right.
3. You don't decide what belongs on the Casebook. If you don't like it, leave.
Ally |
Author: Kevin Braun
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 01:47 pm | |
| Another good thread, that has now shot to sh*t. |
Author: Terry "Dont call me Hulk" Hogan
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 02:04 pm | |
Hey, I dont know about you but all this publicity has made me want to read Ivor's book!
What is the title? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 02:05 pm | |
Hi Judith,
Thank you for your comments which I do take note of as your friend. I have no intention of debating any further on any topic with the person concerned. I think most of us all know the score now !!! Best wishes, Ivor |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 02:16 pm | |
Ally,
Your comments about my warped thinking means about as much to me as anything Radka would say. You are just as rude as he is. I don't need to kiss you a** to have access to JtR information and I certainly won't. I did not directly say anything about your intellect in my messages but you must show your colors or you can't function. You don't need to kick me off the boards, I refuse to subject myself to the same type of rudeness and assinine behavior by people like you or David. I wish all best wishes, with some exceptions of course. You are an absolute failure as a monitor which shows how little you care about this site. Oh well. I'm gone. Try not to lose any sleep tonight.
julie |
Author: Ally
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 02:31 pm | |
Awwww..gee. Now my feelings are hurt.
Sniffle,
Ally |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 02:39 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
I'm glad we're still friends, and hope that it remains so. Rise above it, baby, don't wallow in it!
And, David, perhaps a better choice of words might have been in order? There are seven million ways to insult or denigrate someone; perhaps you should consult your thesaurus for alternate forms of repartee. Take that as advice from a friend, David, and meant in the spirit of friendship.
J |
Author: chris scott
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 04:19 pm | |
Hi all
At the risk of stirring up embers that seem to be simmering in this thread, can I just say that I have not yet read Ivor's book and so will make no comment on it. But I do feel it appropriate to make an observation when I come to read any new book on the subject. There have been many works on the subject of the Whitechapel murders that I have read in which, even though I may not have agreed with the main thesis, I have still found items of information that are of great interest and worth following up. The fact that I may feel that the theory of a particular worked may be historically flawed or illogically argued does not invalidate the work in my opinion in that the research that has gone into that thesis may provide me with valuable material.
Having seen the tone of a lot of this thread, can I just add that in all threads in which I post I will never be drawn into making personal comments about any other poster nor will I respond in any way to any personal comments made about myself.
Yours in hope of cooperation and respect
Chris Scott |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 04:43 pm | |
Philip, et. al.,
Just for the record, I'm no lawyer, but I know how to use a search engine.
The law on "message board" libel cases is still out. Here's an article about it from a PA website I found: Libel article
Also, take a look at what is posted at the top of the message boards page: "The views expressed on the Casebook Message Boards are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the management or staff of Casebook.org." That pretty much absolves Stephen and Ally of any liability.
Granted, like I've said before, you can sue anybody for anything, Ivor'd be throwing away a lot of money for little reason if he tried to go after the Casebook.
Let's keep the legal crap to a minimum. I've had to sue people before, and it's never pretty.
B |
Author: Walter Timothy Mosley
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 05:41 pm | |
From the online version of Howard Pyle's The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood (http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.277/sec.14/):
"Now, I make my vow, Sir Knight," quoth Robin, "thou hast surely learned the wisdom of good Gaffer Swanthold, for he sayeth, `Fair words are as easy spoke as foul, and bring good will in the stead of blows.'
These are good words to live by on these message boards. Are public insults and disparaging personal comments toward others really necessary? I may disagree with you, I may think your theory is rubbish and your ideas laughable, but I usually at least try to show respect. Can't we all just get along?
Take my word for it - Ivor responds very well to courteous and civil communication and correspondence. Try it and see for yourselves.
WTM |
Author: Terry "Dont call me Hulk" Hogan
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 07:53 pm | |
`Fair words are as easy spoke as foul, and bring good will in the stead of blows.'
Powerful words, WTM. Well put.
~whine~ Earlier I posted about the title of Ivor's book. No response. I had to search the 'net for details, no info on a Casebook search! Har-rumph!! ~end of whine~
After reading a few reviews, including the not-too-stellar review in Casebook, I still am intrigued with reading Herr Edwards research and theory and I will look to purchase it.
If I have learned anything from amateur research on JTR it is keep an open mind. There is no smoking gun..yet...
so all we have is theories and opinions, including Frau Cromwell.
I applaud you, Mr. Edwards, for making your thoughts public on the matter and not keeping us in "suspense" with your theories on the subject, and not shoe-horn anyone else's opinion into the frame-work of your own theory. At least not that I am aware of! 
Further, it is most honorable that you 'condescend' into the "pit of vipers" to answer questions regarding your theory.
I have my own bias about co-incidence (I live in the heart of DC sniper territory, and unbelievably, I had been to each shooting site in the last 10 years, including the VA I-95/ I-66 shootings) but that does not take away from the fact that there was 930-950 yards between each JTR killing. (Nor does it take away from my own pet "theory" regarding the Dorset St/Flower and Dean St. connection.)
Coincidences happen, but things also happen in conscious patterns.
It is not one or the other; it is both.
I best leave it at that. |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 07:59 pm | |
The information at the link posted by Brian above is quite good, but it does *not* absolve site operators of responsibility for posts just because of a disclaimer. Note the very important line: "If defamatory items or items violating copyright law are brought to your attention, remove them immediately."
(The copyright part of it is now handled by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and if they get a complaint that deals with that they can always just request people to fill out a DMCA form. Those are pretty straightforward and easy to figure out once received.)
If there are, in fact, legally damaging things posted here, Stephen and Ally could very likely run into problems if they know about them and let them remain. I sincerely doubt most of the things people were complaining about meet that criteria, however. Unfortunately only a court can decide for sure, and it's best to avoid that completely if at all possible.
I think that the Casebook would run into problems if their official policy is "ban anyone who complains about legally controversial materials." I don't think that's what they are doing (although they might want to clarify it so nobody gets that impression).
I'd imagine it's perfectly permissable legally to do what I think they are now doing: suspending the posting rights of anyone threatening to sue the site until the threatened case is completely resolved (in court and any chance to appeal over) or officially dropped (and I might even want it in writing that they won't pursue a case based upon the incident in question if it were me). That would seem to be a reasonable precaution to avoid further trouble that could get the site owners caught in a crossfire of suits and countersuits.
Although I have had Communications Law classes in college (was a journalism/psychology double major) and have been involved in publishing both online and in press for 10 years, that doesn't make me a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination. I suggest that Stephen and Ally read over the link Brian provided, do further searches online, and then consult with a lawyer if they feel it's in their best interests.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 08:41 pm | |
Hi Terry,
Thanks for the comments, What this "nest of vipers" (as you put it ) are unaware of is the fact that a mongoose has landed in their midst. !!! |
Author: Terry "Dont call me Hulk" Hogan
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 08:47 pm | |
| Herr Edwards...Touche'! |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 08:51 pm | |
1. What I said about Ivor was, as Ally correctly pointed out above, absolutely nothing more than what Ivor has said about himself all along on these boards, and in his book, time and time again. Ivor uses his criminal career as a SELLING POINT for his ideas!! Please get that through your heads! All I'm doing is following IVOR'S own statements and thinking!! I believe that Ivor has not fully understood what his past may be interpreted as meaning to the bulk of his readers. It seems to me that he thinks he can offer up his past history, and it will necessarily be taken as a 100% positive credential to his work on the Whitechapel murders by everyone. This is certainly naive. When I question how Ivor's criminal history may not necessarily equip him to solve the case as he thinks it does, all I'm doing is picking up on his own thought!!!
2. I don't believe I've been critical of Ivor's position on the case save for the degree of importance he places in the locations of the bodies. I have overall been COMPLIMENTARY of Ivor's thinking! I have on balance made positive posts concerning Ivor's theory, not defammatory ones. Many people posting these boards readily fall in emotionally behind extremely simplistic lines. If they see me doing something that appears at first blush to be nasty--whup! Sue him!! Sue him!! There are a number of people who have become so enamored of the possibility of solving the case by location of the bodies that they feel it incumbent on themselves to attack me for doubting it, as if by doing that the identity of the Ripper will magically appear!
3. I graciously reworded my posts concerning Ivor to accomodate him as soon as he complained, although I personally didn't see any need to do so. Surely this is not the action of someone intent on defaming or ruining Ivor.
4. Ivor picks on me relentlessly!! Look at what he wrote straight out of the chute in his first post following the end of his ban! Give me a break!
Grow up, people! Get yourselves one notch past age fifteen for the first time in your lives.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 09:09 pm | |
Hi Julie,
Are you related to Annie Oakley by any chance ? The reason I ask is that you hit the bulls eye every time and you sure know the score. We should call you Sure Shot Julie in future. |
Author: Terry "Dont call me Hulk" Hogan
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 09:34 pm | |
Quoting Herr Radka:
"When I question how Ivor's criminal history ..."
This is the 2nd time in as many days that you have brought up Herr Edward's past. Yet I have yet to read that in any of Herr Edward's most recent posts. I genuinely do not see a need to re-iterate the point. Is there a history here that I am unaware of, but seems no longer relevant?
"I don't believe I've been critical of Ivor's position on the case save for the degree of importance he places in the locations of the bodies. I have overall been COMPLIMENTARY of Ivor's thinking!"
I have been here a week and have read your posts about 2 strangers bumping into each other in NYC, recognizing each other from the death camps in Germany, supporting your position on sheer co-incidence as opposed to a conscious effort to 'have' victims as pre-determined locations. My interpretation was that you were being critical of his POV, (well within the forum rules) specific to the topic currently being discussed in the thread. To say "overall" you have been "complimentary" is not exactly the way I saw it. I have not bothered to go through ALL of the archives to see the history between yourself and Herr Edwards. I know what I know.
"There are a number of people who have become so enamored of the possibility of solving the case by location of the bodies that they feel it incumbent on themselves to attack me for doubting it, as if by doing that the identity of the Ripper will magically appear!"
I dont attack you, or anyone, at all, but I expect to come to this forum and hear all points of view on the matter discussed subjectively but with a degree of objectivity. I do read a number of posts from you that seem to seek to deflate another's opinions. That is fine and dandy, but I have yet to read anything constructive from you that would actually forward thinking on the matter.
"Grow up, people! Get yourselves one notch past age fifteen for the first time in your lives."
OK, I will assume that is addressed to posters such as myself.
On your advice, I will kick it up a notch.
Herr Edward's opinion is in the eye of public scrutiny. Furthermore, he is willing to answer questions on the matter.
What is YOUR theory?
Once and for all. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 09:55 pm | |
Hey guys - how many years have we been waiting for David's magic theory to turn up ? Not a sniff in all this time.
If its not ready by now then there must be some SERIOUS FLAWS in it , so I think we can safely dismiss it. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 10:01 pm | |
Ally,
You have more than once shown double standards on these boards and as for me conversing with the lowest of the low yes indeed I have conversed with such people right here on these boards.One does not have to go into a prison to converse with such people furthermore I have never boasted about my past I just dont hide my skeletons in the cupboard like some people do. Such remarks show just how bias you truly are I have never been a con man or a hustler and I do not expect to be called such. Whether I have a past record or not has nothing to do with that issue.You have been on the planet for 5 mins and think you know it all also for the record I let the matter go and find you and Radka dragging it up here again.What the hell makes you think that you are so perfect when it is so obvious that you are far from being so ? Everyone is always in the wrong by your code except you.It is also wrong for you to encourage posters to leave as you are doing with Julie because she speaks the truth. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 10:35 pm | |
Hi Terry,
Did I hear a distant groan from a person who had a theory which never was stating "Grow up" do I hear the kettle calling the pot black ? |
Author: Terry "Dont call me Hulk" Hogan
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 10:48 pm | |
Herr Edwards,
I heard nothing.
Terry |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 11:41 pm | |
Terry,
Spoken like a gentleman. I am mistaken it must have been the wind. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 03:39 am | |
Hi All,
Based on the number of posts and the number of different posters, this is the most popular thread currently on the boards.
The current issues at hand appear to be: who can and should sue who; what is Ivor Edwards' personal history; what is David Radka's ability (or lack thereof) to assess the character of other people; and the degree to which Ally's conduct reflects bias?
I think once those four vital issues are finally settled, the mystery of the identity of Jack the Ripper should be relatively easy to solve.
Anxiously awaiting a resolution,
Rich |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 03:52 am | |
I do not believe Ivor has ever boasted about his past or associates.He has been honest enough to own up to past misdeeds,and unlike David Radka has never sought sympathy in his postings.
Certainly his past helps in understanding the criminal mentality,nothing wrong with that.He is no different than the law enforcement officer who is constantly in touch with the criminal element.He states life as he has experienced it,and that should not be held as a bad example. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 04:07 am | |
Hi Harry,
I am reminded of J.H. Hatfield's book about George W. Bush. Hatfield wrote that in 1972 Bush had been arrested for possession of cocaine. The book went on to allege that Bush's rather out of character volunteer service at PULL was in exchange for a judge friendly to the family expunging the record of Mr. Bush.
It was revealed that Mr. Hatfield had done time in prison for attempted murder. Thus, the conclusions of his book were dismissed.
I recall an attorney's old line that, "Sadly, in the eyes of most people, all nuns have 20/20 vision and a hooker just cannot see."
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 08:42 am | |
Hi Harry, What you state is the truth and 99% of people on these boards know that.One or two would not know the truth though if it jumped up and bit them on the backside.
Many criminals ( without official records ) get voted into office by Joe public all of the time.Look at Nixen and Kennedy for just two such examples you cannot get further up the ladder than that. People such as these portray themselves to be honest upright and above all beyond reproach (just like some folk on these boards ) yet they are worse than any criminal as we all now know.I would rather deal with an ex- criminal who told the truth than any person who persisted in telling lies regardless of their position in life.In all walks of life one will find bad apples in the barrel including here on the boards but at the end of the day the truth prevails and it all comes out in the wash. If I am concidered to be at fault by bigots for being truthful and for trying to educate others as to how criminals may act or think in certain situations then I can live with that. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 09:00 am | |
Hi Tim,
Many thanks for your comments and for making the effort to lead horses to water for the sake of all concerned. I award you my version of the Noble Peace Prize for such a worthy effort.Best wishes. |
Author: Ally
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 09:12 am | |
Hi Richard,
I can answer those questions for you.
1. People who are weak whiny and annoying should threaten to sue everyone who pisses them off. That way, they can shut down the boards entirely and ruin it for everyone because they have a personal grudge against someone and aren't man enough to settle it without hiding behind lawyers.
2. David Radka has absolutely no ability to assess character. (But that isn't actually the point being debated.)
3. Ivor has said in the past that he was a "property criminal". He sees some better distinction between that and a con-man who is also a criminal engaged in taking money that doesn't belong to them.
4. To what degree do my actions reflect bias? To the degree that Stephen Ryder's dictates mean they must.
Ally |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 09:35 am | |
To all posters,
AGAIN I raise my ugly head and ask a couple of rhetorical questions {I KNOW I'm a PITA, I KNOW I annoy people, I KNOW I don't let go easily, but I also know when I am making a valid point}: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHETHER OR NOT IVOR WAS EVER INCARCERATED? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE THAT DAVID CAN'T INSULT SOMEONE USING A MORE EXPANSIVE VOCABULARY? AND WHO CARES?? I'm ... sorry for shouting.....I do that when I am being made crazy.....just ask Ally. Does ANY of this thread make any sense to anyone? OTHER than the exploration of whether or not Stephen might be liable for some idiotic posts made here, THIS ARGUMENT MAKES NO SENSE!! Ivor has said he won't rise to the bait any more. David rehashes old remarks until I feel queasy.....GET OVER IT! We all should ignore this until it goes away. The only thing that might come out of all this is that Stephen {quite logically} might wake up tomorrow morning and close down these message boards......WHO COULD BLAME HIM?? We sit back, at our not so tidy computer niches, and debate the laws of libel on the internet. We argue whether or not the Casebook could be on the hook for something someone wrote and posted, and Stephen is the subject, AND THE POSSIBLE RECIPIENT, of all this. HAVE WE ALL LOST WHAT IS LEFT OF OUR MINDS???
I QUIT, I GIVE UP, I CRY "UNCLE", and I REFUSE to participate in causing my friend, Stephen Ryder, one more second of unpleasantness.
J |
Author: Billy Markland
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 10:58 am | |
Lady Judith,
First, what the blazes is a PITA?
Second, I agree one hundred per cent!
Thirdly, NEVER quit!
As a result of your perceptive post, 2/1/03 at 09:35 a.m., ...........
" I do solemnly swear that I will, on the Casebook message board, endeavor to uphold professional and courteous standards of behaviour. If I am slighted, I will ignore any personal comments as being beneath my notice. I will apologize if I deliberately or inadvertently personalize an argument.
My word of honor,
So help me Microsoft."
Ahh, I feel liberated already!!!!!!!! |
Author: Terry "Dont call me Hulk" Hogan
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 10:58 am | |
I think I have a rather firm grasp on the ~Whine~. When do I get some ~Cheese~?
Life is short |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 11:03 am | |
Dear Billy,
In deference to those with fragile ears, I abbreviated, but will tell you {in a whisper} .. PITA....Pain In The Ass. Seems appropriate to me!
Thanks..glad you like the post, and I WILL SIGN THE PLEDGE! Any others care to join us??
And I will NEVER give up...maybe opt out, but NEVER give up.
Sympathies and concern to the families and friends of the crew of the space shuttle COLUMBIA. May they not have known what was happening to them.
J |
Author: Billy Markland
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 11:18 am | |
Huh????
What about the Columbia????
BRB, going to check the news!!
Billy |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 03:13 pm | |
Hi Billy,
It broke up on re-entry over Texas killing all seven crew. |
Author: Paula Wolff
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 03:53 pm | |
YAHOO Judith!!!! You're so right. Keep on saying it. Be a PITA, just do it. Always spot on! Gosh, my 10 year old grandson is more mature than these guys.
Yo,
Paula |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 04:27 pm | |
Hi Ally,
Now I am glum. I thought once those questions were answered we might be closer to solving the case. Woefully, I am no closer today than before these vital issues were raised.
Despondently yours,
Rich |
