The Aberconway Version

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[mariab]

To The Good Michael:
Nope, I'm afraid I don't know my North American (or European, or African) bird life too well, I didn't even know that loons are birds. To quote Illica/Puccini, “Non ho studiato ornitologia“. (I'm sure Simon Wood and The Grave Maurice will get the reference – hint: it's from Madama Butterfly.)

[Stewart P Evans]

Final Post

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.

I really don't believe this.

It is not a case of 'negative comments' it is a case of suggestions of dishonesty that were seen to be bordering on libellous. And the decision to ban was not mine. I presume that the administrators received a complaint and that complaint was acted upon.

It is also not a case of 'winding up' - it is that the adverse suggestions were made about professional authors by a professional author - not just anybody. Professional authors rely on their good reputation for a means of income - i.e. writing.

What I said was that I wouldn't post it as I didn't want the hassle - such as that I am getting now. It didn't mean that it wouldn't get posted as someone else would do it and not me.

By the way - hopefully I haven't got any dishonesty to be questioned. Or did you get that wrong?

Anyway, I have no wish to get into a 'I'll have the last word' game with you and this is my final post.

[The Good Michael]

quote Illica/Puccini, “Non ho studiato ornitologia“ hint: it's from Madama Butterfly.)

That is the one opera I slept through. Love La Boheme, however, and many other Italian operas (and German), but Madame Butterfly was like Nyquil for me. I don't know why... maybe bad performers?

Mike

[m_w_r]

Hi chaps,

I find this whole brouhaha quite astounding.

The administrator of this site was quite clear about the circumstances which led to Trevor Marriott's temporary suspension, and, if you look at previous cases of this sort of thing on these boards, the powers that be have mentioned that it isn't necessarily their policy to share the reasons for their decisions with the general readership. In this case, they did, and I suppose this was to assist interested parties with their understanding of the circumstances, and to forestall the sort of fractious discussion which we're now having anyway. So, as far as I can see, no blame whatsoever attaches to the management, who have the authority and the right to make decisions as they see fit for the good of their forums.

In the meantime, Stewart doesn't need anyone to stick up for him, as he's quite competent to do that for himself, but it's surely obvious that he had offered to act as a conduit for the publication of the Aberconway papers. When things heated up, with a lot of personal feeling (and some cynical invective) involved on the parts of several posters, he felt that he would prefer not to act as a conduit for the document for the time being. Fair enough, one would have thought - whose decision is it but his? But now he has to fend off further invective based on a decision which he plainly made for his own perfectly legitimate reasons. Well, that isn't fair, in my opinion.

In the end, if people wish to see the Aberconway papers, I wonder why they do not attempt to secure their own permission to see them from the legal owners? This might be difficult for some, but it's surely not impossible. And if this is indeed too much for some people, then perhaps they need only be patient until the papers are, in fact, made publicly available, as per the agreement which has apparently been made between Messrs Mclaren and Skinner. What's the rush? And, if there is a rush, what's the point of all this excitement, when a short, calm repose would achieve the same ends?

I'm looking in from my perspective here, of course, and nobody has to agree with me, but it would seem to me that a little more omission and a little less comission would (counter-intuitive though it obviously seems to some) hasten rather than delay the appearance of the Aberconway version for those who wish to see it; it's for that reason that I think that people could usefully take a step back at this point, relax, and put their pointing fingers away.

Just my opinion.

Regards,

Mark

[Ally]

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

Considering the pill Trevor has proved himself to be, I would think that people are well advised NOT to hand out people's private contact information to him.

The facts are these: No one ever asked that the full document be posted before. The authors determined which bits they thought were relevant and presented those. NO ONE ASKED for any more information. Then, all of a sudden, there are questions being asked about it. This next bit is presumed, but reasonable, one can guess that Stewart contacted his friend Keith and made him aware that there were questions being raised about the document. Keith decided, quite rightfully, to contact the owner of the document and get his permission to publish it. In the meantime however, the questions about the location of the document took a decidedly disgusting turn, with implied accusations of all kinds of duplicity wrongly and vilely hurled at the authros of the to A-Z, at which point, it was decided that if people were going to behave like jackasses, they were going to pack up their ball and go home.

In short, Trevor shot himself in the foot. If he had just been a tad bit patient, he would have gotten the information he requested. The fact that he couldn't keep his bile in check is directly what has led us to this point, so it is not at all unfair or inaccurate to say that he is solely and 100 percent responsible for the document not now being published. You do not insult and disparage the people you are requesting a favor from, and make no mistake, it is a favor indeed that Trevor was asking for. Keith Skinner is under absolutely NO obligation to Trevor or anyone else to share his hard won research. The fact that certain arrogant and immature people feel somehow entitled to reap the benefits of someone elses work beggars all belief. While I personally feel that the world would be great if info was just handed out, I am not one of the people busting my hump to get it, so my personal opinion on sharing information is irrelevant.

Once again: Trevor owes the entire A-Z team a sincere and heartfelt apology.

[mariab]

To The Good Michael:
I can't stand Madama Butterfly either. All the “japanization“ of melodic construction produces some really ugly music. And the story is unpleasant. I prefer La Bohème too, both musically and dramatically (which as a story stands up even today). Plus La Bohème Act II is still reminiscent of grand opéra, which is my favorite genre.
(Oh yeah, I'm the worse thread highjacker of all.)

[Dr. John Watson]

Considering the pill Trevor has proved himself to be, I would think that people are well advised NOT to hand out people's private contact information to him.

One could have facilitated mutual contact if one had been willing to help.

The facts are these: No one ever asked that the full document be posted before. The authors determined which bits they thought were relevant and presented those. NO ONE ASKED for any more information. Then, all of a sudden, there are questions being asked about it.

This is somewhat misleading, I think. My understanding is, Trevor has been seeking that document privately and getting a run-around for some time.

This next bit is presumed, but reasonable, one can guess that Stewart contacted his friend Keith and made him aware that there were questions being raised about the document. Keith decided, quite rightfully, to contact the owner of the document and get his permission to publish it.

Reasonable, but pure conjecture.

In the meantime however, the questions about the location of the document took a decidedly disgusting turn, with implied accusations of all kinds of duplicity wrongly and vilely hurled at the authros of the to A-Z, at which point, it was decided that if people were going to behave like jackasses, they were going to pack up their ball and go home. In short, Trevor shot himself in the foot. If he had just been a tad bit patient, he would have gotten the information he requested.

With exception of the melodramatic "vilely," probably dead on.

The fact that he couldn't keep his bile in check is directly what has led us to this point, so it is not at all unfair or inaccurate to say that he is solely and 100 percent responsible for the document not now being published.

Here's where you slip from objective to advesarial, and your attack on Trevor is just as unfair to him as his attack on Stewart and/or Keith et al. is perceived to be. 100 percent responsible? I think not. It takes at least two to tango. Mind you, I would not for one moment abridge your right to criticize Trevor or lecture him on etiquette, or state your fervant opinion on this or any other matter. That is the wonderful thing about Casebook - we can challenge each other and disagree on things, hopefully without fear of retaliation.

You state you are not one of the people "busting his hump" to dig up new information. Well, Trevor is one of those people, and while we are all entitled to our own opinion on the matter, not one of us has walked in his shoes, and likely only Trevor and Stewart and Keith are knowledgable enough of the true facts to say what really happened - and why. It should be up to these gentlemen to settle this between themselves. I'm sure when all is said and done, and the document has been published for all to see, a simple apology and/or retraction would not be out of order. For now, all this carping and criticizing isn't accomplishing a thing here. We've all said our piece. The best that could happen at this point is for this thread to be closed.

John

[Monty]

Mark,

You talk sense, may as well be Cantonese.

Personally I wouldnt trust Trevor with my shopping list.

Monty