The Aberconway Version

[Chris]

So are we to understand the reason for not printing the entire Aberconway letter on this board for all to see is simply to teach Trevor Marriott a lesson?

I think you are seriously underestimating the degree of offence that Trevor Marriott has caused to the people at whom his slur and innuendo have been directed.

If you can try to put yourself in their position, I think you may be able to understand. Remember that, despite repeated urging, Trevor Marriott - for some reason that I find incomprehensible - absolutely refused to take the simple step of emailing them to clarify the situation. Instead he chose to make publicly the offensive suggestions he did. And now that it has been clarified that there was no truth whatsoever in those suggestions, so far from trying to repair the damage, he is continuing to send hostile private messages to people, that could almost be calculated to wreck any prospect of the document being published. (I have received a couple from him along the lines of the one he sent to Stewart - expressing the hope, among other things, that what he calls my "author friends" have "some good answers as to why they have kept it squirreled away for 24 years.")

Is it any wonder that people aren't falling over themselves to be cooperative?

I hope that the Aberconway draft will still be published somewhere, in some form. But in the context of what has happened over the past few weeks, I think people should appreciate that that will require quite an act of forbearance - one that I'm not sure I should be capable of.

[Dr. John Watson]

I think you are seriously underestimating the degree of offence that Trevor Marriott has caused to the people at whom his slur and innuendo have been directed.

Chris, perhaps you're right, but it's difficult for me to believe that men of proven reputation, unquestioned honesty and acknowledged leadership in the field of Ripper research could - or would - take Trevor's suggestive comments seriously. I understand that Stewart was stung by Trevor's remarks, rightly so, but I admit I'm puzzled by the intensity of his reaction, and even more so by his decision to not publish the letter - thereby punishing the rest of us for Trevor's perceived misdomeanors. Wouldn't it have been better to simply ignore Trevor - like an eagle would ignore pesky fly? After all, Trevor's been suspended for his misdeeds - isn't that enough?

Still, Stewart poses a very good question: Why did Trevor not approach Keith Skinner directly long ago, before resorting to a frontal attack on Stewart and/or the others? Perhaps he did, and we just don't know it.

At any rate, what's done is done. Hopefully, reason will again prevail if we can only get past this unfortunate impass. How about it, fellows: Shake and make up?

John the Peacemaker

[corey123]

Hello John,

I wish it were that simple. It pains me that ripperworld has ended its year like this. A poor way to end it if you ask me. The words of few have ruined many oppertunities. Such as is life, a few can make the difference, whether it be good or bad, as in this case, obviously bad.

I suppose this is the politics of it? Can't find a nicer word to explain it.

There have always been two camps in ripperology, and I always have wished they would band together, no, they are dividing at the seams only more.

[Chris]

Why did Trevor not approach Keith Skinner directly long ago, before resorting to a frontal attack on Stewart and/or the others? Perhaps he did, and we just don't know it.

???

Stewart has made it perfectly clear that he did not.

[Stewart P Evans]

Appreciate

Chris, perhaps you're right, but it's difficult for me to believe that men of proven reputation, unquestioned honesty and acknowledged leadership in the field of Ripper research could - or would - take Trevor's suggestive comments seriously. I understand that Stewart was stung by Trevor's remarks, rightly so, but I admit I'm puzzled by the intensity of his reaction, and even more so by his decision to not publish the letter - thereby punishing the rest of us for Trevor's perceived misdomeanors. Wouldn't it have been better to simply ignore Trevor - like an eagle would ignore pesky fly? After all, Trevor's been suspended for his misdeeds - isn't that enough?
Still, Stewart poses a very good question: Why did Trevor not approach Keith Skinner directly long ago, before resorting to a frontal attack on Stewart and/or the others? Perhaps he did, and we just don't know it.
....
John the Peacemaker

John, whilst I appreciate your good intentions, I'm afraid that you are still not quite appreciating the facts.

First, it is because the authors of the A-Z are 'of proven reputation, unquestioned honesty and acknowledged leadership in the field of Ripper research' that Trevor Marriott's comments were taken seriously. A suggestion of dishonesty on their part was made by another author who also happens to be an ex-police officer. That his words were taken seriously by others is evident in the responses posted to him and Simon Wood.

My reaction was no more, nor any less, than it needed to be, and I spoke up on their behalf, as has Chris Phillips also.

You are totally wrong to say that it is my 'decision to not publish the letter'. That decision is Keith's, with Mr Mclaren's permission. I am sure that Keith will have the document published when he sees fit to do so. What I have said is that I would not be posting the document on these boards - which I won't. I couldn't post it without Keith's permission anyway and I haven't got that permission (by the way it is not a 'letter').

If Trevor and Simon wish to post unjustified antagonistic statements then they either have to prove what they say is true (which in this case it isn't) or they have to apologise. I think there is more chance of a frozen pond in a tropical forest than there is of an apology. And all three authors of the A-Z are able to confirm that they had no contact or request from Trevor Marriott.

[Stewart P Evans]

Only Two?

...
There have always been two camps in ripperology, and I always have wished they would band together, no, they are dividing at the seams only more.

Only 'two camps'? There have been many divisions in Ripperology for many years. Even in the 1960s, early 70s we have evidence of strife between Dan Farson and Tom Cullen. Perhaps the worst examples of 'camps', divisions, and falling out of authors with each other occurred in the 1990s over the dreaded 'diary'.

So it is nothing new, it is the same in most fields of expertise and it can be a healthy and productive thing - as long as it doesn't get too nasty. It is a competitive field of research peopled by some really strong characters who are often very enthusiastic about their work. Such divisions are to be expected, but behaviour such as we have witnessed here is not.

[mariab]

SPE wrote:
Only 'two camps'? There have been many divisions in Ripperology for many years. Even in the 1960s, early 70s we have evidence of strife between Dan Farson and Tom Cullen. Perhaps the worst examples of 'camps', divisions, and falling out of authors with each other occurred in the 1990s over the dreaded 'diary'.
So it is nothing new, it is the same in most fields of expertise and it can be a healthy and productive thing - as long as it doesn't get too nasty. It is a competitive field of research peopled by some really strong characters who are often very enthusiastic about their work. Such divisions are to be expected, but behaviour such as we have witnessed here is not.
A perfect description of the situation, and I personally would not be as naive as to expect that apologies might occur at the end of the day. Still, everyone in his right mind and even marginally informed in Ripperology should be able to figure out why things got out of hand in the discussion, and that a suggestion of dishonesty against SPE is completely ludicrous.
I've been talking with someone (whom I will not name at this point, as it's their decision to come forward in due time, and if their endeavor succeeds) who might be willing to approach Paul Begg about the eventuality of posting the entire Aberconway version on the JTRForums. Possibly around Christmas-time, which is a good time for forgiveness and appeasement. (And I'm only half-joking here.)

[corey123]

Hello Stewart,

I was speaking of the two 'main' camps. Multi-ripper and a single serial killer. I understand there are various camps, as you said, such as Keith Skinner, Morris, et al, and then Paul Feldmen, the diary camps.

[Dr. John Watson]

Perhaps the worst examples of 'camps', divisions, and falling out of authors with each other occurred in the 1990s over the dreaded 'diary'.

How well I remember that! Talk about trench warfare! This incident hardly rises to that level of widespread dissention, but you are absolutely right about honest disagreements leading to greater knowledge on all sides. Unfortunately, in this particular matter, it doesn't look like anything good is going to come out of it - unless and until the Aberconway document is finally published in its entirety for all to see.

John the Hopeful

[Hunter]

I've been expecting something like this to culminate for some time now. It is the result of overzealous theorists who form their notions first, and then throw a bunch of manure to see if some of it sticks; instead of making the proper inquiries and conducting the relevant research first, to ascertain if there is any justification to promulgate an idea. Any historian of any note would understand the necessity of the latter if he/she is to maintain any credibility.

To produce this document in this atmosphere would be perceived as handing over the goods at gun-point... a precedent that Mr. Skinner and/or Stewart Evans rightly chose not to promote.

Stewart:

A. Lincoln once told the story about a man who, while riding his horse, found that the horse had gotten his foot caught in the stirrup. Upon gathering up the reins, he looked down and said, "If you're goin' to get on, I'm goin' to get off." The trouble is that the horse wouldn't know where to go; except, maybe back to the barn.

You are one of the people who have tried to steer the reins of Ripperology on the right path for many years; despite the fact that the old horse gets its foot caught in the stirrup on occasion. I know its frustrating... been there, done that in other historical endeavors. I can only count about 8 or nine books on this subject that deserve any credence. Four of them have your name on them as co-author. Your proverbial horsemanship in this particular manner is outstanding. When the old nag gets his foot caught in the stirrup, gather up the reins, put pressure on the bit and spur him a little. He'll eventually get untangled and go in the right direction.


"The irony of the information age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton, 1995


.

[corey123]

Hello Hunter,

I admit, I have been one of those "wild theorists" who proposed theories first, then to 'throw manure' up and 'see if it sticks'. However, I haven't used such methods as I have seen the past months, no slander, no accusations, no gun-point trickery. I suppose the fact that everyone has their petpeave theories is ammendable up to a point where one must draw the line. The line has been long crossed in this case, and it is ammusing that some are supprised at the reaction to some of the rather outlandish statements made by some.

I agree with you Cris, Stewart, Maria, et al. This has to end before progress can be made. This pursuite was for progress? The consequence of few have delayed the purpose of this battle.

With all due respect,

Corey

[The Good Michael]

Hunter,

I agree. Theories must be created out of evidence. Instead theories are created out of the air (or from an orifice), and then evidence is manipulated or imagined to fit the theories. That is what makes most ripperologists unscientific in their approaches.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Thank

Yes, this has to end. I should just like to thank those who have had the insight to understand the issues here and to give their kind support. It is appreciated.

There is nothing to hide in all this and I am sure that the document will be published at the right time. But it is true to state that no one is going to be coerced in to producing it, especially when they had not even been approached with a view to publishing it in the first place. Keith's credentials are proven and do not need going into here. It really is a very unfortunate episode and let's hope that it can be forgotten.

Simon and Trevor are two dedicated researchers with a keen interest in the case - but that is true of all of us, I hope. Please let's not get over-zealous and I hope that the dust can now be allowed to settle.

[Ally]

As and when any decision is made I shall be posting the copy of the document with the permission of the person who holds it.

Hi Stewart,

I am confused. If the person whose permission is needed is Mr. McClaren's and he appears to have given it, indeed, asked that it now be published on the internet, then what precisely is the current delay?

Not attempting to stir or be rude to anyone, my question is genuinely asked, but it appears that the permission has been given by the person who actually owns the document and he has requested it be published, so why are his wishes not currently being followed?

Once again, I want to stress, I am NOT attempting to accuse anyone of anything, I am genuinely confused about this.

[Chris]

I am confused.

I think you need to read the other messages following the one you quoted, because the situation has changed since then.