|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
simon young
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 5:10 pm: |       |
I am have long been interested in true crime, [in particular criminal profiling]. But Jack the Ripper has never interested me that much; and I only know what I do about the murders tangentially through reading other books. My interest is growing though, and the site is very well done. Anyway, enough of that. I am surprised, if it be the case, that no one seems to have mentioned Professor David Canter’s book “Mapping Murder” . Here we have possibly the foremost criminal psychological profiler in Britain devoting two closely argued chapters to Jack the Ripper and, in particular, “The Diary of Jack the Ripper” [its provenance and authenticity] Necessarily, this involves Canter in profiling JR to see if he jibes with the writer of the diary. I had read the diary and thought it laughable, and was ready to throw Canter’s book away, when it became apparent that Canter by no means shares the widely held view that the book is a fake. In fact, it is fair to say, that the arguments he deploys argue as to the diary’s authenticity. Canter delineates 4 possibilities regarding the diary
1 Total invention
2 Written by Maybrick, but as fantasy ie Maybrick not JR
3 JR stitching up Maybrick
4 Truth at last, Maybrick was JR.
As I say, Canter favours, 4 above. What particularly impressed me was the scientific objectivity the Professor brings to the arguments. From being a disbeliever, I now believe that the arguments are not as clear cut as they first appeared - to me at least.
Another good read is “The Cases that Haunt us” by John Douglas, one of the foremost American criminal profilers. Douglas does a long profile on JR and plumps for Kosminski - I am sure all of you will know better than me as to how likely that is?
Anyway, both books are excellent. Happy New Year. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 913
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 10:14 pm: | |
Thank you, Simon.
David Canter has been mentioned on this site, although not maybe that particular book. I have read some extracts from it, however, and as far as I can tell, his views are quite reasonable and intelligent. I am very much a fan of David Canter myself and I've seen him on several occasions on television.
Douglas' The Cases That Haunts Us has been debated here quite a lot and he is one of those in the business I respect the most as well. Parts of his Ripper analysis I think has its advantages (which could also be said for the one done by Hazelwood). I actually think John Douglas refer to "someone like Kosminski", especially as new information regarding Kosminski himself had come to light shortly after Douglas' initial profile on Jack.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 02, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 9:18 am: | |
Hmm. A puzzle. Does the fact that one of the "foremost criminal psychological profilers" in the UK considers the Maybrick Diary possibly genuine reflect the value of the Diary, or does it only reflect the value of forensic psychology?
Time Reveals All
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 676
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 1:10 pm: | |
RJ
I think you hit it right on the head there.
Even the most 'foremost criminal psychological profiler's' cannot resist a go at the Jack problem, and they all - bless 'em - reach one of the tired old conclusions that were already around in my prehistoric days. They come up with all this Freudian lather and clever clog psychology, and then root for the most implausible suspect one could imagine.
Personally I think the whole thing refelcts the value of the Yankee dollar.
It makes good humour though. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 583
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 1:27 pm: | |
Hi RJ,
I met David Canter at the Liverpool ripper conference and found him perfectly sane and sensible, and am also enjoying his Mapping Murder very much.
I wonder if only a psychologist can really judge the value of a fellow psychologist’s work. And as for the value of the diary, that appears to be very much a personal thing, although it surely must have taught us all something, if only about other people, from their individual reactions whenever it is mentioned. 
Talking about its value, I can’t help but wonder at Anne Graham’s reported reaction to her husband’s decision to go public with his acquisition. If she really did try to wrestle the diary from him and destroy it, might that not tell us something about what the diary meant to her, or what it could mean if time does reveal all?
Still many more questions than answers for me.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 678
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 1:50 pm: | |
Caz
One supposes that if Jack himself had met you at the Liverpool Conference then he too might have appeared sane and sensible, but I bet you wouldn't have walked down an alleyway with him at night.
These profilers are a bit like that, show them a publishing contract and they start slashing about all over the place.
I have never questioned any profiler's sanity, merely their vanity. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 918
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 10:25 pm: | |
I am sorry, but that was indeed sheer rubbish, AP.
I hate to break it to you, but there actually IS other backgrounds for writing a book than the obvious commercial ones -- I can refer to my own experience on the matter and I assume you can say the same.
So you mean you dismiss a whole group partly because they write books or appear on television (and partly because you have a grudge against psychologists)?
To quote Dirty Harry: "Swell..."
As far as the Diary is concerned, I have absolutely no opinion on the matter -- it has never interested me, and I believe the expertice in form of a profiler like Canter's wouldn't be enough to draw any conclusion about it; it would indeed not to be to his advantage to claim it as genuine -- if he has done that, it would certainly disappoint me.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 682
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 3:50 am: | |
I would have preferred 'absolute' rubbish rather than 'sheer', Glenn, but I'll settle for your choice.
Of course you are right, I was wildly generalising yet again - great fault of mine - but I'm afraid I do still see greed, avarice, vanity and ego as the prime movers in a writer's art and ambition. I accept of course that there are nobler truths and ambitions in such work, but they are rare jewels indeed. The problem here is that anyone with a vested interest in a publication will pursue the truth and facts as they see them and as they do fit their individual understanding and interpretation. In other words they will sometimes cheat, lie and often invent material in an effort to claim a superior knowledge of events. This is downright tacky and tawdry but probably applies to at least 75% of all material published about dear Jack. And yes, I do carry some of that guilt myself, but it is a very small measure.
I also do honestly question the motives of trained scientists who are already earning vast sums of money and already in a possession of a valid stage for their ego, when they enter the Jack fray with a barely researched suspect or theory. This is much like the pop star who wants to be a movie star, or even the movie star who wants to be a pop star. They want everything, such giant egos can often do great damage and harm to their profession, Freud being the classic example. In the end Freud thought he was god, and blimey a lot of these profilers do as well.
I'll trot off now, or maybe I should canter? |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 920
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 7:46 am: | |
"I'll trot off now, or maybe I should canter?"
Uuuuh, good one... 
Well, AP. I must admit -- regardless of your sincere withdrawal and correction -- that there is an underlying meaning in your opinions here that I don't really care that much about. I don't want to come across as naive, but I do think the non-commercial intentions represents a larger group than "rare jewels".
One thing I intensely hate about Sweden is the envy and the contempt for those who are successful and have the guts to go public with what they do. And indeed I'd hate to see this disease, indeed a direct result of both Martin Luther and brain-washing socialism, spread outside the Scandinavian region.
I really can't see what is so appauling about criminologists, profilers etc. writing books or appearing on television. And even if there would be commercial aspects to consider as well -- so what? I don't see the problem. It doesen't necessarily have to suggest that there isn't a sincere intention on their part as far as their work is concerned. If that was the case, then nobody (regardless of occupation) could write books or appear in public situations. Is it just profilers you dislike in this context? Or do you reason in the same way regarding others as well?
Most of us who have ambitions and who have a drive to pass on a message with what we do, are some sort of exhibitionists, and that certainly goes for me as well. But that doesen't automatically mean that I shouldn't be taken seriously. My own book was quite successful, but I would have loved if it made even more money or got me an even stronger public exposure. I love to see my photo in the papers more than anything, and I certainly don't feel guilty about it. But it doesen't have anything whatsoever to do with my capablitity or my idealistic driving forces. And it doesen't automatically have to mean that I "invent" facts or lie about the truth. I think such thoughts speak too much of communism and envy, and it really rings bad in my ears. Commercialism and idealism CAN go hand in hand and the one doesen't have to exclude the other.
Naturally such things as those you point at -- I can actually see what you're getting at -- do happen. I think Patricia Cornwell and the late Stephen Knight probably represents the worst examples of the things you refer to, but apart from that we are all writing from what we consider as truth. That can never be avoided -- there is no general truth. Everything is personal interpretation -- also profiling. And I really don't see the difference when people like Fido, Evans, AP Wolf and on the other turf people like Canter publishes their work on book-form or show their face on television? Do you suggest that Martin Fido, Rumbelow, Stewart P. Evans and others are liars, cheaters, lime light addicts and unserious money-loving frauds as well (even though books seldom makes you that rich)? And what about yourself, then?
We all love to make money on what we do, and some of us even like public exposure. But does that necessarily have to imply lack of moral and lack of talent? And an absence of a sincere intention to pass on a message we believe in? I'm sorry, AP, but I can't with all the will in the world accept that writing or in any way expose myself in commercial contexts should disqualify me from having serious intentions or being competent. And if John Douglas, Roy Hazelwood or David Canter wants to expose themselves or earn money on writing books or appear in programs, they certainly are allowed to do so without having their intentions questioned. Then, if one dislikes the content of what they're saying -- that is a completely different thing, but that is up to ourselves as readers, the public and other experts in the field to judge, and should always be the thing to debate.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 683
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 1:33 pm: | |
Well Glenn,
Nicely said. I consider myself humbled by your uncommon good sense of fair play. Of course you are right, there are many, many serious and quite laudable writers in this field who should not be subjected to the type of venom that I chuck out from time to time, but equally so there are a large number who deserve that venom and a little bit more.
We must consider the situation as parlous when we are faced with the uncomfortable fact that the top three best seller books of the Jack world are complete and utter hoaxes from start to finish. This is not to say there are not those who move against this trend of charlatanism and wholesale fraud, and the names you mention are obviously up there with the best, but all hiccup from time to time, but let us be discrete and fair and forgive their minor indiscretions.
Nobody is perfect, least of all my good self.
Funnily enough Glenn, I am totally opposed in any form or manner to the highly elitist form of devotion that accompanies the modern cult of the personality, and I do see in efforts to publicise one’s own ambitions and efforts through the modern mass media as a sell-out to true personality and attainment. The modern writer writes the book, goes on talk shows, gives interviews to press and radio, has photo on the fly cover of the book, has photo in newspaper and magazine, attends conferences where gives speech to dazzling applause, sponsors MacDonalds burgers and leather sofas, appears on TV adverts… in the end the poor sod is like Saadam Hussein with his portrait plastered on every street corner in Baghdad and ends up in a hole in the ground dressed as a woman with a beard and living on pot noodle. I do pity such people with such ego.
I am old fashioned. I believe a writer should write a book and then… write another book. You will never see a photograph of me for this very reason, and it is only in the autumn of my life that I would consider attending a conference or similar, simply because I would like to meet people such as yourself before I too fall down the stairs.
I also believe that profilers should profile and help to cut the crime rate.
We will have to live on different planets regarding this subject, Glenn.
I am austere to the point of infinity and am pleased to tell you that I never made a cent out of Jack and never want to.
But I admired your post very much, and I sometimes do wish that I wasn’t such a venomous old sod.
|
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 174
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Dear AP......you are my sunshine.....how beautifully you sometimes say what needs to be said. Natalie. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1765
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
Glenn, all Luther's problems stemmed from piles. Why else the expression "Here I stand. I can do no other"?
I blame the Diet of Worms.
Robert |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 98
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 8:01 pm: | |
Robert,
Piles? Didn't he nail "95 feces" to the door?
Never mind.
Don. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1767
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 10:49 pm: | |
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 921
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 11:15 pm: | |
Hi AP.
Thanks for your nice post.
Well said, although I do see that we live on different planets regarding this. I see your points, though, and you are absolutely not wrong in some of the things you refer to -- I am myself quite worried about the developments that lead to that the writing itself becomes a secondary thing and the commercial stuff the primary effort. That is discouraging, to say the least. However, I believe that's the rules of the game nowadays -- at least if you publish your books through a larger publishing company. I published mine myself, so I had the opportunity to make my own decisions.
However, I can't agree with you when you say that writers should write books and nothing else, and profilers do profiling etc. I for my part think it is quite annoying when there ISN'T a photo on the author somewhere in connection with the book and I do think it's exciting when the authors appear for example in a documentary. To me the author himself or herself is almost just as important as what they write.
But more importantly: If you are an expert on something, you also -- as I see it -- has an obligation to the public to make yourself useful in different contexts, not just to be egocentric about it and sit at home in your armchair.
I must say, I don't understand why writers should sit isolated in their chambers away from the lime light and do nothing but write. It may be more suitable for you and others, but for those who wants to expose themselves more in public, should be allowed to do so. Writing is a very lonely and isolated form of occupation, and I for my part love the opportunity to give lectures concerning my book, to appear on book signings in the book shops and to be interviewed by the papers. Why? Because
a) I get further opportunities to get my message through
b) I get the opportunity to MEET PEOPLE, and especially my readers. I think that should be important to any writer. A writer who just sits in his chambers, I get quite suspicious of -- why does he or she don't want any response on his or her work?
Not everybody wants to sit in their chambers, AP. Some of us wants to get out there and meet people and getting our faces known to the public. I admit I am not a humble person, I am an extreme exhibitionist, but it has nothing to do with my writing abilities or my moral foundation. I just happen to love to be recognized on the street (which is quite easy in the town I live in...) and to get my message though to a large group of people as possible. I can't see what's wrong with that. And I don't think Canter & Douglas Incorporated should be discredited for it -- if they should be discredited it would be if they didn't do a good job, nothing else. That is, for example, why we criticize Cornwell -- her fame and commercial efforts do not in any way stand in proportion to the results she presents or how she performs her investigation. But that is unfortunately how it works, and if no other author is allowed to become famous, then there are only the questionable characters left who become visible on the commercial scene. That is indeed a danger.
As I said, this echoes too much of Luther and socialism as far as I am concerned. But maybe we belong to different generations?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 04, 2004)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 922
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 11:20 pm: | |
Robert,
It has recently been discovered through archeological excavations of his home, that his diet was much more luxurious than we up to now have imagined. I believe he ate better than both you and me.
Anyhow, that doesn't have to exclude the possibility of piles, of course...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
Profiles can hardly be taken seriously when they were written with a specific suspect in mind or with very limited information spoon fed to them from other sources (who often have agendas of their own and books to sell). Garbage in, garbage out. There's also the great need to try to solve the case (both for egotistical and book promotion reasons), which forces lots of people to jump to conclusions that are otherwise unwarranted.
I believe a good number, if not all, of the profiles mentioned on this thread fit that category.
|
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 1:54 pm: | |
"These profilers are a bit like that, show them a publishing contract and they start slashing about all over the place.
I have never questioned any profiler's sanity, merely their vanity."
>>I agree with AP 100%.
Bullwinkle |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 590
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
Hi AP,
In the book I recently co-wrote, the authors didn’t cheat or lie by inventing material in an effort to claim superior knowledge of events surrounding the diary, neither did we promise – or deliver - any sensational theories, conclusions or solutions of our own.
In short, it was boring - not ‘sexy’ enough, as the saying goes.
I saw on another thread that you had read our book, so did you like it the way it was? I assume you would not have approved had we produced a work of fact with added fiction to give the story more oomph and - dirty word alert - commercial appeal?
Cannot passion about one's subject sometimes come across like ego, from writers who might, in any other situation, run a mile from public appearances etc?
It must take all sorts to put pen to paper.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 688
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
Caz, as I said I am just a venomous old sod who even grumbles when the sun shines.
To be honest with you I never read I book I liked the way it was, I always felt there was room for improvement, or when not then a decent public hanging.
I thought your book solid and worthy, but I never did see a point... sorry, I don't mean that in a horrible way, I just get confused by the entire diary business and sometimes do wish it would all go away to somewhere like the Laccadive Islands and not bother me any more.
No reflection on you, just a reflection on my strange manners and ways.
I don't believe one should write with passion when dealing with factual matters, passion belongs to poetry and prose, here we must deal with facts, and we must not be persuaded by the colour of money or the flush of first ego.
You are right, it takes all sorts, and I'm probably the worst of the bunch because I sometimes even dislike myself. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 600
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 9:05 am: | |
Hi AP,
I guessed you were going to say you didn’t see the point of a book like ours, which leads me to the obvious question – what was the point of you reading it then?
I think one can be passionate about one’s subject yet not always write with passion, if you see what I mean. When it comes to setting down the facts, it should be a dispassionate but thorough exercise, but lack of passion doesn’t have to mean lack of colour and drama, as long as the facts lend a helping hand.
But I will argue with passion here on the boards, when I see errors of fact, or assumptions, arguments and conclusions that don’t necessarily follow from the facts, or worse, actually conflict with them.
Going back to David Canter, I do find it quite astonishing that anyone would seriously argue that he openly expressed his professional opinions on the diary in today’s anti-diary climate as some sort of career move spurred on by vanity!
I can imagine few characteristics that would induce anyone with neutral or pro-diary views to ‘come out’ these days only to feed the waiting sharks, and vanity is certainly not one of them.
The complaint about people writing books to line their pockets or buff up their egos or both seems so contradictory and hypocritical somehow. We are all writing here presumably because we enjoy it (or are some of us masochists?), so how can we possibly judge each other’s motives, or the motives of others who happen to have done so on a professional basis? If some eccentric millionaire were to offer us all hard cash for writing what we do here, for example, would any one of us refuse it out of principle? If so why, when one could presumably give it all to Victim Support or the local cats’ home if one felt that grubby about taking it for oneself.
I am told in one breath that the so-called diary ‘camp’ is friendless, fundless and can’t fool anybody, and in the next that they have all the wealth and influence, charisma and artfulness they need to supposedly appeal to the pockets and vanity and gullibility of professionals like David Canter. Does anyone really believe this? Don’t you credit at least some of your audience with the intelligence to know a demonising exercise when they see one?
I hope people will at least do David Canter (and everyone visiting this thread) the basic courtesy of reading all he has to say on the matter in Mapping Murder, so no one has to read ill-informed or unsupported views in future that the man must either be greedy, vain, easily swayed or completely out of his professional depth.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 693
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 2:06 pm: | |
Ouch Caz! You writing with passion here all right.
I don’t honestly think I did say the things you highlight, I might have scratched at them, irritated them a bit so to speak, but I don’t believe I said that any particular individual was blatantly guilty of that horrendous catalogue of evils that you now throw at my windswept front door like some old copy of the local rag.
I’m afraid I do not look at anyone as being in any particular ‘camp’ or the other and tend to judge them on the events of life connected to their individuality, and I suppose this is where you and me are always going to fall out, simply because I do not trust a professional trained scientist who suddenly decides that he or she wants to be a best selling author in either fiction or fact, and that mistrust becomes positive alarm in such a populist subject as Jack the Ripper. All I see in such a radical swerve away from the clinical dissection of criminality in Home Office study, document and the like, is a grasping ego-driven desire to be a member of the cult of personality.
And I do not like the cult of personality and see it as powerfully negative force in mankind’s development.
To be perfectly honest with you, I believe Canter pronouncing on the Diary is much like Darwin pronouncing on the fuel economics of the turbo-jet on the modern aviation industry. Both are experts in their own particular sciences but neither would be qualified to make such a pronouncement, for it is not within their remit or expertise.
It is now’t but nonsense and poppycock because he is way out of his ‘professional depth‘.
I am sorry if you find my views on writing somewhat similar to that concept, but I do see what I would call an unspeakable and ever-increasing trend towards outright commercialism in the publishing industry - so bad that my agent has fled the scene as have me good self - where there appears to be no longer any pride in pure truth, positive fact or even literary excellence.
There is without a shadow of doubt a persuasive and creeping literary corruption involved in the entire edifice of the Jack world, and few of us remain untouched by that insidious disease. The fact that the author of a yet unpublished volume feels the need to come on here and apologise for the content and intent of that forthcoming book does speak volumes to me about the situation we find ourselves in.
It may be your world, but it aint mine, and I’d like to ship the whole doughnut off to Siberia and let it chill out for thirty years.
Having said all that though, I do still see much good in this literary field where there are some very serious, honest and wholly ‘good’ people involved without ego or financial greed who do make a genuine and laudable contribution to our knowledge. I just wish I was one of them.
You do know - deep in your soul - that I do credit every member of this entire ‘audience’ with intelligence, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t.
I’ll agree that my views are often ‘unsupported’ but I don’t think I would ever make the mistake of allowing them to be ‘uninformed’.
Finally Caz did you ever read the reviews of my own work when they first appeared.
Hah! Canter has an easy ride here compared to that veritable onslaught of venom. Please keep that in mind when you consider my own comments about your work, for I may not have seen the point but I did see effort and honesty, and a tad passion.
Always enjoy crossing swords with you.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 608
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 6:51 am: | |
Hi AP,
I don’t actually see all that much difference between those who write nonsense and poppycock about a subject in which they may or may not be out of their depth, whether they do it here on the boards for their own gratification, or whether they do it in a professional capacity, and people decide to take the plunge and pay to read their work. (No book in the world, ever, has come with a guarantee that its contents will be universally pleasing - or disappointing.)
Who, in your opinion, is not out of their depth when pronouncing on the diary? It would only be your opinion anyway, and if I don’t know how qualified you are to pronounce on other people’s qualifications, how do I know you are not out of your own depth?
Incidentally, who has apologised here for the content and intent of a book not yet published? I think I must have missed that one.
I don’t mind in the least hearing your thoughts on our work. It just puzzled me why anyone would bother picking up a book they believed had no point. Or did you think there might have been a point to a book on the inside story of the Maybrick Diary before you read it? If so, what were you hoping and expecting that point to be exactly, so it might one day be made?
Thanks.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 697
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 1:22 pm: | |
I know one thing, Caz, if I don’t know anything else, and that is that I am out of my depth here in this thread, and in great danger of drowning, but at least I’m not afraid to admit it.
I stick to my view that a professional criminal profiler is superbly ill-equipped to judge the authenticity of any literary production, not only that, he is also ill-advised to do so if he wishes to keep his professional reputation and standing in his own specified and extremely narrow field of expertise and knowledge.
As I am also, which is exactly why I have not done so. I think you will find that many of those who have involved themselves in this Diary fracas now sport bandaged hands and battered egos… two conditions of which I’m afraid they will probably never recover. The Diary and all its ensuing debris has done nobody a jot of good, and never will.
The apology I talked of was on another thread but intimately connected to this thread.
It is your world, Caz, and quite honestly you are welcome to it.
I will begin to canter, then trot and finally gallop into the sunset as far as this thread is concerned.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 623
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 8:06 am: | |
Hi AP,
I too have seen many bandaged hands and battered egos on my travels in diary land.
But since I, like your good self, don’t believe in putting my hands anywhere near the mincer, and wouldn’t recognise a good ego-battering if the silly batterers tried it, I remain a very happy bunny, safe and secure in no-man’s land – my world, if you will.
And I guess I can stay here until someone can judge who is sufficiently well-equipped to judge the authenticity of any literary production.
You are wrong about one thing though. You’d be surprised if you knew how much good the diary has done me in my little world, AP.
I’m talking Cheshire Cat here.
Always enjoy crossing swords with you too, AP – any thread, any time.
Love,
Caz
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
