Mile End Vigilance Committee

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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]

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!)

[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“.

[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

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Tom

I apologize for my over-reaction. As Maria said, it might be expected when someone comes up with some startling revelations. As Maria wisely said, "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." Nothing against you, old bean. As you know, I have done some study of the Jewish aspect of the murders and previously just regarded Joseph Aarons as what he prima facie appeared to be, a publican who was a member and treasurer of the Mile End Vigilance Committee headed by local contractor George Lusk. I will be as eager as anyone to learn more if you have further information on him.

Best regards

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks for that, Chris. I feel much better. Perhaps I'll write a bit about the idea on this thread and you and Monty and Claire, etc., can get a better idea of where I'm coming from.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Chris George seems to think I'm so wise. I feel like I should grow a beard or something. And maybe people should start paying me a fee for advice, it would be very welcome.
By the by, Mr George, do you by any chance happen to read Yiddish/Hebrew? I think Gareth Williams (Sam Flynn) reads a bit of it. We've recently had an Arbeter Fraint issue translated and planning to do more issues, but it's a pretty expensive and incredibly time-consuming endeavour.

[Tom_Wescott]

I feel like I should grow a beard

Not necessary. A beard is only required if you wish to be a Ripperologist editor, or if you want to catch Jeff Leahy's eye at a conference.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

A beard is only required if you wish to be a Ripperologist editor

I thought Don Souden is the exception to this sacred rule?

or if you want to catch Jeff Leahy's eye at a conference.

Already ahead of you on this.