Mile End Vigilance Committee

[Monty]

All,

I think Tom makes a really valid point with regards the Lusk letter. It certainly put that committee in the spotlight.

I also think its no coincidence that the Star newspaper drove the request for the formation of committees.

Where I will not go as far as Tom, I will accept he has a fundemental point.

Monty

[mariab]

I actually think it might be an outrageous idea to suggest that Aarons was behind the Lusk postcard, letter and kidney. Just think about it: he was an officer of an organization that had been formed to stop the Ripper outrages.

Only Aarons was not an officer, but a publican self-proclaimed officer and treasurer of the organisation, having hired a known pimp and criminal as his co-leader in the WVC.
It's like I said yesterday, the WVC was a very civic idea, but it was created as a financial venture, in a pub. And, as criminals were involved (Le Grand and his sidekicks), it degenerated into deception.

A hoaxer who worked to obtain a human kidney would surely get more milleage from it by mailing it to the press, Scotland Yard. But to Lusk? It doesn't make sense until you ask yourself WHO gained from the kidney. The only answer is the WVC.

THIS and the suspicious behaviour of Aarons/Le Grand after the kidney was received is what made me attentive to the realities here.

I also think its no coincidence that the Star newspaper drove the request for the formation of committees.

Was there something specific going on with The Star which I might not know? I would appreciate any information.

[Tom_Wescott]

Where I will not go as far as Tom

Do you mean you will not based on what you know now, or that regardless of the evidence, you refuse to accept that Aarons would be part of a hoax?

Keep in mind I'm not at all suggesting that Aarons was in any way shape and form part of the Ripper murders. And I'm not suggesting that Lusk knew (at that time) it was a hoax. He was clearly the dupe.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

Only Aarons was not an officer, but a publican self-proclaimed officer and treasurer of the organisation, having hired a known pimp and criminal as his co-leader in the WVC.
It's like I said yesterday, the WVC was a very civic idea, but it was created as a financial venture, in a pub. And, as criminals were involved (Le Grand and his sidekicks), it degenerated into deception. . . .

Hi Maria

I thought it was more Tom who was describing the committee as a financial venture and that you, myself, and others were saying it was a genuine effort to try to stop the crimes. I don't see much significance in the fact that the committee first met at the pub. They had to meet somewhere, didn't they? Also Aarons was accepted as treasurer of the organization, whether he appointed himself or not.

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Chris. I've shared a bit more with Maria than I have on this thread, and like I said, it's hard to resist the conclusion that Aarons and Le Grand were behind it.

Just for the record, the vigilance committe WAS legit. I'm not saying it was a criminal enterprise. I'm just saying that when the money didn't come in like they thought, Aarons looked for a way to boost their public exposure and appeal.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Hi Maria
I thought it was more Tom who was describing the committee as a financial venture and that you, myself, and others were saying it was a genuine effort to try to stop the crimes. I don't see much significance in the fact that the committee first met at the pub. They had to meet somewhere, didn't they? Also Aarons was accepted as treasurer of the organization, whether he appointed himself or not.

Hello Mr George.
Although it is entirely Tom's idea and I'm giving credit to him at 100% for figuring it out, as it happens I'm the one in this thread who first hinted to the idea that the VWC was also a financial venture, in my posts #9 and #17, so I'm really contemplating this possibility.
As for Joseph Aarons, it's not uncommon for a publican to become a treasurer in an organisation, but the fact that Aarons hired a known pimp with a known criminal past (Le Grand had been in jail from from 1877 to 1884) as a co-leader in the WVC doesn't look too good for Aarons. Aarons could have been a dupe (as Lusk appears to have been), but then again, Aarons, not Lusk, was the one in a haste to run to the newspapers and to overeagerly advertize the Lusk kidney incident and the WVC after the fact.
I'm not suggesting that Aarons was collaborating with Le Grand in any other schemes (unless evidence for this is found at some point), especially NOT in anything pertaining to Berner Street, where we have plenty of evidence that Le Grand was very active in trying to obstruct the investigation.
I'm very interested in researching Joseph Aarons a bit further. It might be a Polyanna idea, but I've often thought of looking up some bank records (which I've done a couple times in another field, with very successful results), not just for Joseph Aarons, but for other people as well. There's a possibility that I might be in London for a few days in early October, and I was thinking of trying it – particularly if Rob Clack accepted to help me with this endeavour.

PS.: By the by, might I thank you again for the Rip 117 issue, Mr. George, and I'll most certainly come back to you for a full subscription in about a week or so, when things get a bit quieter here.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Maria

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.

Thanks for your kind words about Ripperologist. We will look forward to welcoming you as a subscriber, Maria!

Chris

[mariab]

Hello Mr. George,
By the by, there are descendants of Matthew Packer, and I'm sure they wouldn't like what's being said about their ancestor, even if there's tons of evidence to support it.
We've already stated that we arent's suspecting George Lusk or any other of the WVC members, who clearly were well intentioned people, pursuing a very civic idea.
Sweeney Todd would fit more with Klosowski/Chapman.
Thénardiers from Les Misérables? This cracked me up, and I honestly wouldn't say that Joseph Aarons was exceedingly greedy vs. trying to survive, and at least there's no evidence that he was robbing his customers like Thénardiers, but the fact that Aarons didn't appear to have any second thoughts in appointing a known, ex jailee criminal and pimp as co-leader of his WVC endeavour speaks volumes. And if Aarons was a dupe, like Lusk, then why all this intense advertizing to the press post-kidney? Lusk certainly didn't join in on any of this, despite him being the recipient of the parcel.

What interests me personally is the relations/conflicts between the WVC and the IWEC. This is a subject for another thread, but my personal suspicion is that Pipeman's description fitting Le Grand in Schwartz' testimony might have been a result of William Wess having intended a warning against Le Grand's activities on Berner Street. (As it happens, I've found some evidence in French spy reports about a Hungarian Schwartz orator involved with the IWEC, and I'm still researching this hint.)

I'll be really glad to subscribe to Ripperologist soon, after so many back issues acquired “on the sly“ by different authors, about which I feel very guilty, ;-) but it was a fascinating read.

[Adam Went]

Maria:

What a shame you haven't seen the Michael Caine film.....you should be able to get both parts on DVD pretty easily, definitely worth checking out. I rate it higher than From Hell....

Tom:

The kidney and note was addressed and named to George Lusk - no mention of the MEVC in there at all. So while what you're saying is true, it's only through Lusk that we know so much about the MEVC, not the MEVC receiving the letter as a whole entity.

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.

The point was though that the MEVC were in it for the money, which is the sentiment that I was somewhat disagreeing with.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Do you mean you will not based on what you know now, or that regardless of the evidence, you refuse to accept that Aarons would be part of a hoax?

Keep in mind I'm not at all suggesting that Aarons was in any way shape and form part of the Ripper murders. And I'm not suggesting that Lusk knew (at that time) it was a hoax. He was clearly the dupe.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Based on what I know now Tom.

Monty

[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

[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!

[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.

[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]

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.)