The Aberconway Version

[Chris]

The example you quote in no way refutes Trevor's statement that he tried to contact Keith Skinner but could not obtain his address from any of those he asked ...

Well, if someone publicly dismisses repeated suggestions that they should take a certain course of action, and later claims that they had really wanted to do so all along but didn't because people wouldn't help them, I find it very difficult to take that claim seriously. Frankly, it seems like a rather weak attempt to blame someone else.

[The Good Michael]

I don't know of any Ripperologists in Minnesota, but I'm sure that The Grave Maurice and other Canadians might not react too nicely to being discriminated upon in such a blunt fashion, considering that they were not even involved in the debate.

Apparently you don't know your North American bird life. I'm from Minnesota and have been all over Canada. That's where loons come from, and it's the state bird of Minnesota. No insults made toward the great folks of the northlands, the best people in the world.

Mike

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Fleetwood Max,
I have known Stewart , through the casebook ,for a number of years and have never known him to be anything but a scrupulous,fair and a superb researcher, as well as being kind and extremely generous.He has made himself clear.He does not feel he is in a position to be posting Keith"s document.
But I too am really disappointed that things have reached this impasse as I have very much appreciated Simon"s and others sterling contributions too .
By the way Mike, I think Stewart himself may actually reserve judgement about Irish plots---ask him sometime about what Macnaghten is supposed to have said about a plot to assassinate Balfour!
But seriously, lets hope this all begins to settle and heal soon,
Best
Norma

Hello Norma....

I don't doubt for a second that Stewart is held in high regard on this board....nor that the reason is anything other than his work...which makes it even more ludicrous that Trevor's opinions could cause such a storm.....in a teacup.

But this thread suggests that at various points the document was going to be posted and then it wasn't....and Trevor has been implicated in the decision.

My view is......ignore what anyone says if you don't like it and get on with doing what you were going to do in the first place and what the vast majority of people would appreciate you doing.

[mariab]

SPE:
There are many who are going to be mightily disappointed when they see the full document if they think there is something of great relevance or importance to be seen. In fact a reading of Keith's 1987 piece on the 'Aberconway version' combined with the A-Z entry on it has shown most of what is of relevance. As is stated in the latter volume the vital section is pages 5-6, 6A and 6B which they give in full.
In whole it comes across as what many believe it to be, merely Macnaghten's draft version of the official document which has been in the public domain for many years. Yes, I think that it should be published full and yes, I believe it will be published in full - as and when the three authors are ready to do that. This decision has nothing to do with me and I have no influence in the matter.
I'm sure that most people on the boards are in a position to figure all this out for themselves. There is no great hurry for the entire Aberconway document to be published ASAP. Hopefully Mr Skinner (for whom, I'm sure, the accusations of “squirelling away“ documents, the conspiracy theories, and the unfortunate, if innocent, manner of approach by Mr. Marriott are nothing new) would accept to consider publishing the Aberconway version in its entirety at some point in the future, as it's the right thing to do, in the interest of scholarship. Otherwise, there have been volunteers to approach the other A-Z editors for a possible posting of the entire document in question on another forum. I hope to be excused and understood if as a newbie I expressed the wish that Ripperology focuses on researching the sources instead of nurturing hurt feelings. Again, it's the right thing to do in the interest of scholarship and the seek for truth, which should be our collective aspiration.

The Good Michael wrote:
Loonies belong in canada and in Minnesota calling to each other in their haunting, cooing cries across the lakes.
I don't know of any Ripperologists in Minnesota, but I'm sure that The Grave Maurice and other Canadians might not react too nicely to being discriminated upon in such a blunt fashion, considering that they were not even involved in the debate.

[Fleetwood Mac]

but should that be enough to permanently "expel" him from our group?

Absolutely not John. Trevor has a particular style and at times it ain't particularly courteous. But there's such a thing as freedom of expression.....and assuming I'm correct in thinking this is an American site...then it's even more surprising considering it's almost enshrined in their constitution and culture.

The way I see it is this: if you don't like Trevor's opinions and style then just ignore him and have a chat with someone else...don't ban him for god's sake.

On the plus side...as Trevor's now spending his days breaking stones in the local gulag...he'll have more time on his hands to come up with an answer.

[Dr. John Watson]

I'm sorry, but the fact is that during the earlier discussion several people suggested to Trevor Marriott that he should contact the authors of the "A to Z" directly, and so far from asking for people's help in doing so his only response was an outright dismissal of the suggestion.

The example you quote in no way refutes Trevor's statement that he tried to contact Keith Skinner but could not obtain his address from any of those he asked - or that no one shared with him the name of the actual owner of the original Aberconway document.

John

[Fleetwood Mac]

You seem to be sadly misunderstanding the situation.

Trevor Marriott suggested dishonesty on Keith Skinner's part. Keith does not post on these boards (or any others) and he is an old and close friend of mine (and has been for the past twenty four years). He also made a similar suggestion about Keith's co-authors, Paul Begg and Martin Fido, both of whom are also old friends of mine. I merely spoke up on Keith's (and the others') behalf. But primarily for Keith as it is he who owns the copy. All three are professional authors and researchers who do not need suggestions of dishonesty made about them.

I am the last person to be petty and having served nearly thirty years as a police officer I am hardly likely to be. I am not depriving anyone of anything. In fact many will attest that I am the one who usually helps all I can and have shared much of my material with many. So I resent these remarks. For the last time - the document is not mine to post or publish and I do not have permission to post or publish it either. If Keith wants it published he can easily get one of several persons to do that.

Finally it is crap like this that is now driving me from the boards.

Regarding your first paragraph - it is one person's negative comments - that should never drive anyone's decision making - and I for one am scratching my head thinking why one person's - any one person's - comments would have a bearing on someone's decisions. What you're saying is - effectively - is Trevor Marriott can wind people up to such an extent that they act according to Trevor's comments. Never mind that 99% of people/posters are not questioning anyone's personal ethics. Why are Trevor's opinions so important? Now to me that is odd.

Regarding your second paragraph - you did say somewhere on this thread that you are not posting this due to what has been said by Trevor (something along the lines of your dishonesty being questioned). In the event it's a case of you not having the authority then that's a different matter...but it seems to me you were laying this at Trevor's doorstep due to his actions. And I for one can't understand for the life of me why one person's negative opinions would dictate your judgement/decision making. I can only guess in the absence of an explanation.

And as for 'suggestions of dishonesty'.....I gotta say Stewart....grow up man...so what...that's life....not everyone is going to give you or your mates a fair crack of the whip. Just ignore it - that's what most people do when they hear nonsense from people who they don't hold in particularly high esteem anyway.

[Dr. John Watson]

. . . if those who wish to research their theories, whether they be conspiracy or not, they need to do so in a civil manner. If they cant do so, I would think the appropriate action would be expulsion . . . Removal is the only way, other than apologies which I have little hope for.

With all due respect,

Corey

Your point is well taken, Corey, but instead of civility (one can be quite obnoxious, yet in a "civil" manner), the word I would use is respectful: Respectful of another's ideas, another's right to express these ideas, another's right to explore and question these ideas, and another's right to disagree. Trevor was arguably disrespectful toward some in his comments, insofar as questioning their forthrightness, but should that be enough to permanently "expel" him from our group? Especially considering the fact that in the past, far worse insinuations and outright accusations have have been hurled among and between some of the must respected and dedicated Ripper researchers on these boards, worse than anything Trevor Marriott is accused of. The researchers (for the most part), the Casebook, and Ripperology have all survived - for the better, I think. If and when any among us oversteps the bounds to the point where he/she should be banned permanently, we can trust in the judgment of our Casebook founder - a man who has shown himself to be both fair and honest, with no need of any help or encouragement from the mob.

John the Old One

[Chris]

Trevor states that he attempted to contact Keith Skinner but was unable to secure his address from anyone - and the fact that he wrote to the wrong McLaren is evidence that those "in the know" were not sharing that with him.

I'm sorry, but the fact is that during the earlier discussion several people suggested to Trevor Marriott that he should contact the authors of the "A to Z" directly, and so far from asking for people's help in doing so his only response was an outright dismissal of the suggestion.

The following is one example, from 1 November:
"Well all the pussyfooting that has gone on with your suggested way of approach has not worked so I put it another way which I dont believe amounts to a demand.
It would be nice for those persons to come out and at least say why they will not publish it, that would be a start. Until they start to show some tranparency this ill feeling towards them is going to continue.
Perhaps you should decide which side of the fence you are sitting on. You are not excatly overwleming us with pearls of wisdom, Anyone can sit here and critisise and make suggestions."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=152889&postcount=84

[jmenges]

I fully endorse any disparaging remarks about Trevor Marriot on this thread.

I hope that this was meant as a joke.

JM

[Natalie Severn]

Hello Fleetwood Max,
I have known Stewart , through the casebook ,for a number of years and have never known him to be anything but a scrupulous,fair and a superb researcher, as well as being kind and extremely generous.He has made himself clear.He does not feel he is in a position to be posting Keith"s document.
But I too am really disappointed that things have reached this impasse as I have very much appreciated Simon"s and others sterling contributions too .
By the way Mike, I think Stewart himself may actually reserve judgement about Irish plots---ask him sometime about what Macnaghten is supposed to have said about a plot to assassinate Balfour!
But seriously, lets hope this all begins to settle and heal soon,
Best
Norma

[Stewart P Evans]

Understood

I would just like to again thank those posters who have understood my position and shown some support.

There are many who are going to be mightily disappointed when they see the full document if they think there is something of great relevance or importance to be seen. In fact a reading of Keith's 1987 piece on the 'Aberconway version' combined with the A-Z entry on it has shown most of what is of relevance. As is stated in the latter volume the vital section is pages 5-6, 6A and 6B which they give in full.

In whole it comes across as what many believe it to be, merely Macnaghten's draft version of the official document which has been in the public domain for many years. Yes, I think that it should be published full and yes, I believe it will be published in full - as and when the three authors are ready to do that. This decision has nothing to do with me and I have no influence in the matter.

[corey123]

Like I said from the beginning, let this topic die.

[spyglass]

THIS IS GETTING VERY CHILDISH AND TIRESOME NOW!!!

C'mon we are all suposed to be grown ups... not politicians...I think everyone needs to stert again after a few days rest from it.

[corey123]

I would find it wise to...like I earlier said.... let this topic die. The more people talk, the less we get to see, do, talk about, the more new posters will stray away from the site, and the more the 'usuals' will dissapear. Mike is right, if those who wish to research their theories, whether they be conspiracy or not, they need to do so in a civil manner. If they cant do so, I would think the appropriate action would be expulsion. As is the only right move to make, quarenteen the problem, then remove it, unless a better solution can be made. I know of many who endorse Trevors theories, yet do they cause an uproar like this? No!

Removal is the only way, other than apologies which I have little hope for.

With all due respect,

Corey