Mile End Vigilance Committee

[Tom_Wescott]

Ever since Chris became a Rip editor, he rarely if ever gets involved in discussions or publicly voices strong opinions on the boards, particuarly towards writers. It's for this reason I was more shocked than if someone else had said what he said, which was to the effect that you and I are casting groundless suspicions and should be ashamed of ourselves. If Chris knows something about Aarons that we don't, he ain't tellin'.

Actually I would be very interested to know if there are any descendants of Joseph Aarons, George Lusk, or other members of the vigilance committee members and what they might think of the aspersions that are being cast. It would seem to me that you and Tom Wescott have got Mr. Aarons "stitched up a treat" as a kind of cross between the greedy tavernkeeper Thenardier of Les Miserables and Sweeney Todd, when he might not have been anything like that, let alone responsible for the reprehensible "From Hell" letter and half a kidney.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I just hope we don't have to wait as long as we did for A?R.

Especially with it ending up such a “fart“ as the alleged A/R “scoop“.

[mariab]

Expect what from you? To be fair, it's a big, juicy claim about Aarons/Le Grand having orchestrated the Lusk kidney as a hoax, so understandably people are reacting with reservations, until the new idea sits in. In my experience it's an automatic reaction, having nothing to do with people respecting the bearer of the new idea as a researcher. (That's why I said that repeating as needed is key here!)

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, it is, Maria, and we all know that. I was just surprised that after 10 years of publishing essays, Chris would expect that from me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

You will be well aware that people in this field either suggest or go as far as publishing many theories that are of dubious quality.

This is undeniably a fact, particularly pertaining to books vs. articles.

[ChrisGeorge]

Chris George,

You seem to be taking this personally. You also seem to be assuming I would blindly accuse a man of wrong doing without sufficient evidence. Why would you assume that? Has that been a habit of mine? Does it for some reason worry you that I might have evidence that Aarons/Le Grand are responsible for the Lusk kidney? Does such evidence hamper a theory of your own? I can't help but notice you're not in the least curious about my evidence since you haven't asked me to present it. Come to think of it, neither has Adam Went, who has written the entire idea off as 'cynical'. If new information and those forces new and fresh perspectives isn't your thing, then I urge you not to buy my book. You will hate it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom

I have no particular theory of my own in regard to the Lusk kidney. I would be surprised if you have evidence that ties Aarons to it. But as Monty remarked, it's up to you to present it in your own good time. Good luck. All I am doing is commenting as an objective observer with no particular axe to grind. You will be well aware that people in this field either suggest or go as far as publishing many theories that are of dubious quality.

Chris

[Monty]

Well I can understand the fear of plagiarism, as well as the inevitable vemonous backlash of those who disagree. Especially, as Tom states, from those who hold pet theories on the subjuct.

Its Toms call, or whoevers....if they hold the same evidence.

Beware of dragons etc etc.

Monty

[mariab]

One can only comment on the evidence presented so far. To state that others are wrong whilst you have evidence you feel may contradict, then goad them, is not condusive to a civil debate.

Actually, I agree. One can still present part of the evidence, perhaps without naming the sources. Still, it's Tom's decision, as there's certainly been attempts at plagiarism before.
I have some new evidence pertaining to Schwartz and the IWEC, and I'm working on finding more.

[Monty]

I've been around the block a bit Maria, enough to know that all that glitters isn't always gold.

If Tom has evidence then great, if he wishes to wait till the book is out then I don't blame him.

One can only comment on the evidence presented so far. To state that others are wrong whilst you have evidence you feel may contradict, then goad them, is not condusive to a civil debate.

However, Tom has every right to present it as he wishes. I hope no one will beat him to the punch as all this could turn out quite flat.

Monty


PS And I am not dismissing Toms evidence or theory. I just hope we don't have to wait as long as we did for A?R.

[Tom_Wescott]

Oh, I was hoping some people would be shocked by the idea. It's no fun if they're not. It's just a bit disconcerting to me that the editor of a Ripper journal would become angry in the face of new enlightenling information and try to squash it instead of sending a PM or an e-mail asking for an exclusive for his journal. It's called 'suspending judgement'. But with 7-part essays on toilets to edit, who has time for new Ripper research? Blah.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I'm pretty sure that more people will open up to the idea if the evidence is presented and the whole thing repeated often enough. It's been my experience (also in other fields) than repeating is often necessary for acceptance!
(And, not surprisingly at all, Monty seems relatively open to the idea, while asking for evidence.)

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris George,

You seem to be taking this personally. You also seem to be assuming I would blindly accuse a man of wrong doing without sufficient evidence. Why would you assume that? Has that been a habit of mine? Does it for some reason worry you that I might have evidence that Aarons/Le Grand are responsible for the Lusk kidney? Does such evidence hamper a theory of your own? I can't help but notice you're not in the least curious about my evidence since you haven't asked me to present it. Come to think of it, neither has Adam Went, who has written the entire idea off as 'cynical'. If new information and those forces new and fresh perspectives isn't your thing, then I urge you not to buy my book. You will hate it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

To Adam:
I'd love to see the Michael Caine miniseries, but I wished I could just rent it. I have far too many DVDs (and VCRs) as it is. But I'm sure I'll see it someday, either online, or while visiting someone. (I know, I'm such a cheapskate.)

It's only through Lusk that we know so much about the MEVC, not the MEVC receiving the letter as a whole entity. The point was though that the MEVC were in it for the money, which is the sentiment that I was somewhat disagreeing with.

Lusk AKA the frontman of the WVC. Call it “capitalism“ or “human nature“, but sooner or later, most human ventures end up being also about money. Not all, but most. (Hey, Ripperology is most certainly an exception to this rule, which is good!)

Perhaps it's plausible that Lusk and his men were targeted because they got a little too close to the killer for comfort. Maybe some of their group knew more than they let on to the police because they wanted to catch the killer themselves - a lot of them, being from their district, would have known and/or had ties with the underground, the criminals and the paupers, if they were not part of it themselves.

I'm not sure I'd get overly hung up on the 'Aarons knowingly hired a criminal pimp jailbird so he was therefore knowingly dodgy' line. The facts appear that both Aarons and Lusk were in some financial difficulty (Aarons, since he seems to have lost his pub the following year, Lusk as he was, in that same year, booted from the Masons for non-payment of dues), and it's likely that they'd try whatever they could to get their hands on more cash. In that environment, it'd be hard to find someone who could help you quickly in that department who didn't have a criminal past. The focus would have been on the ends and not the means, so I'm not sure Aarons or Lusk would have cared a jot about Le Grand's past, so long as he could secure for them what they wanted.

Essentially Claire and Adam are saying the same thing, and I agree with them. The WVC might have started out innocently, but as soon as Le Grand got a free hand, things changed fast. As for Aarons, other that he was in it for the money and for his pub in a big way, I have (yet) no idea what his initial plans were. But after Lusk received the kidney, Aarons started behaving suspiciously, in tandem with Le Grand. (Though ONLY pertaining to the kidney, not as a collaborator in any other of Le Grand's endeavours.)

I find it quite amusing that Lusk is being painted here as the good guy, respectable and educated ('theatres')

Dodgy music halls nonwithstanding, Lusk was a living saint compared to Le Grand. (At least he didn't beat any music hall dancers.) Again, Lusk's behaviour after the kidney incident was not suspicious. He seemed just genuinely worried for his safety.

[jason_c]

I find it quite amusing that Lusk is being painted here as the good guy, respectable and educated ('theatres'), when essentially he spent a fair bit of time knocking around dodgy music halls.

Dodgy music halls?

Thats all the proof I need. Lusk was complete b*stard!

[claire]

I'm not sure I'd get overly hung up on the 'Aarons knowingly hired a criminal pimp jailbird so he was therefore knowingly dodgy' line. The facts appear that both Aarons and Lusk were in some financial difficulty (Aarons, since he seems to have lost his pub the following year, Lusk as he was, in that same year, booted from the Masons for non-payment of dues), and it's likely that they'd try whatever they could to get their hands on more cash. In that environment, it'd be hard to find someone who could help you quickly in that department who didn't have a criminal past. The focus would have been on the ends and not the means, so I'm not sure Aarons or Lusk would have cared a jot about Le Grand's past, so long as he could secure for them what they wanted.
I find it quite amusing that Lusk is being painted here as the good guy, respectable and educated ('theatres'), when essentially he spent a fair bit of time knocking around dodgy music halls. Certainly, he may have just been a nice guy, but the two things he chose to do for his community (the VC and his church warden-ship) afforded him potential access to cash and to the infrastructures of power. Whilst there's not, I think, evidence to suggest he used those for ill, neither is there evidence he did not. (Plus I still think it's dodgy* to stick a kidney, ostensibly from a victim in the series you're meant to be ending, in your desk and leave it there for your mates to take a look at first.)

*seemingly my word for the day; it's become a tic. Sorry