The Aberconway Version

[Dr. John Watson]

Mark,

You talk sense, may as well be Cantonese.

Personally I wouldnt trust Trevor with my shopping list.

Monty

How about with your 1886 London City police whistle?

John the Inquisitive

[Dr. John Watson]

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

Well said.

John

[Chris]

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

The trouble is that this statement - which presumably originates with Trevor Marriott - is exactly the kind of innuendo that has caused ill-feeling and created the problem in the first place. I really do wonder why you give it credence, and what you are trying to achieve by posting it.

Who, precisely, is being accused of giving Trevor Marriott "a run-around"? Evidently it can't be Keith Skinner, because Marriott has not had any contact with him. Nor the other authors of the "A to Z," for the same reason. And who else would be in a position to give him "a run-around"? One hopes he is not accusing members of the McLaren family.

You say "all this carping and criticizing isn't accomplishing a thing here." In that case it might be as well to stop contributing to it!

[Dr. John Watson]

You say "all this carping and criticizing isn't accomplishing a thing here." In that case it might be as well to stop contributing to it!

I wasn't aware that I was either carping or criticizing, just stating my understanding of the matter. You haven't added anything of value lately, but I don't include you as a carper or criticizer - just a defender. Which is fine.

As for the closing suggestion, I will if you will.

John the Challenger

[Robert]

If we cannot have the Aberconway version, could we have the Russ Conway version? Much easier to wade through - no words.

[harry]

If,as I suspect,the memorandum is that which,in it's entirety or part thereof,has already been published,then as has been stated,there is going to be a great deal of time wasted in reading it.
One thing I will say,is that I have spent quite a deal of money buying various books purtaining to the ripper case,and I would expext the authors of those books to be fair and truthfull,in revealing all knowledge in their possession,from wherever it be obtained.
From what I have read here,I seem to have been a little too trustfull.Some things haven't been shared.

[Monty]

How about with your 1886 London City police whistle?

John the Inquisitive

Still clinging to that one? Desipte the evidence that proves you wrong.

Monty

[Ally]

Following an interesting Skype call last night, I just spent an entertaining hour or so reading every post with the mention of Aberconway that has occurred on the boards, including the deleted ones.

Here is the flat bottom line. From the get go, people were decrying the lack of "transparency", and alluding to the fact that there was some hush-hush dealings going on, when bare and simple truth is this:

No one asked to see it from the very people that basic common sense would have told you should be approached and asked. No one asked publicly and no one asked privately.

In the third post on the Aberconway matter, there were already people implying that there was some sort of conspiracy and cover up when the simple truth is: NO ONE had done due diligence. No one had actually ascertained the document was in fact missing, no one had simply asked the people we all knew had a copy of it, if it could be shown. People, that's first grade manners. If you want to see something, ask nicely. But no one bothered.

There was no conspiracy. There was no lack of transparency. There was just a rush to judgment, there was simply: we want to see it, we haven't seen it, therefore it is being hidden from us....let's hurl accusations and stamp our feet. And I am not speaking of any ONE person here. There were half a dozen involved in this. It is not on one persons shoulders.

In one short week, between the time the document was first mentioned on these boards and before any reasonable person could conclude that the authors had enough time to become aware of the request, approach McLaren and get his permission, the situation had escalated to innuendo and implications of wrong-doing, outright theft and bilking people of family papers.

One Week, that's all it took to go from "where is it" to "it was stolen and being hidden from us". No reasonable person can look at the time frame, and think that it was a reasonable amount of time given for Keith Skinner to become aware of the problem, contact McLaren, receive a reply and act on it.

There was an absolute rush to judgment, with the conspiracy quacks stirring the pot and those outraged on behalf of Skinner and his professional reputation pouring gas on the flames which has led to this absolute mess of a situation.

Here's a lesson for you boys and girls. Next time before you get your panties in a twist and start screaming TRANSPARENCY!, think of Mrs. Starchybottom from first grade and remember to ask nicely before you throw yourself on the floor and start drumming your heels.

Peace Out.

[The Good Michael]

One Week, that's all it took to go from "where is it" to "it was stolen and being hidden from us".

One week? The loonies are becoming more patient it would seem.

Mike

[Monty]

You been Skyping 'that person' again Ally?

Jealousy reigns.

Monty

[protohistorian]

Is Starchy bottom like rigid britches? Dave

[The Good Michael]

No, it's like thicker knickers. C'mon Dave!

Mike

[Dr. John Watson]

Ally, thanks for an excellent summation of the Casebook activity concerning the Aberconway document, but a few issues are left dangling:

1. You didn't provide any dates, most particularly the date of the earliest posting on the matter.

2. You make the point that no effort was made to locate the document privately - in fact you state that as a certainty - yet you do not document your source for this; does Trevor say that in any of his postings? If not, who is the source of this information, and what is that person's authority?

3. Did you find any evidence in the postings that any person, with knowledge of the matter, identified by full name the present owner of the original document, or that any person with a copy of the original document made any offer or committment to publish that document as soon as permission could be obtained from the owner?

Curious John

[Ally]

1. I am of course not referring to every mention ever in the history of the world or the boards, but in regards to this specific matter regarding the document being published in its entirety. Approx 10/19 was when the first general discussions about the document began and a couple of days later is when the first discussions of the "whole complete document" began to be raised and discussions of getting the thing in its entirety on the boards. By 10/23, suspicions that the authors were "hiding something" and that the document contained something they "didn't want us to see", they were being given "the run around" begin to crop up, and a week later, accusations that it was clear that someone had "snatched it" and other now deleted posts that implied that the documents had been stolen. Again, these were not by a single person but by a few.

2. Trevor was the person I spent two hours on the line with last night. He admitted that at no time did he actually attempt to contact the authors of the A-Z.

3. No, of course not, because as has already been mentioned several times in this matter, that person who had that knowledge was Keith Skinner and he doesn't post here. So how could he possibly have indicated he knew where the document was and who owned it, when he wasn't privy to the conversation?!!

However, unless you want to call Stewart Evans a liar when he says that once Keith became aware of the matter being discussed on the boards, Keith contacted McLaren and Stewart was waiting Keith's word to go ahead and post it, one can easily deduce that once the matter was raised on the boards, the wheels were set in motion to contact the only person who is capable of giving consent: Mr. McLaren. SOMEONE obviously contacted McLaren prior to Trevor contacting him, as Trevor's own posting at the beginning of the thread indicates, and McClaren indicates he has given Keith the go ahead to post it, so one can presume, if one uses or possesses the tiniest bit of logical deduction, that once Keith Skinner became aware of the questions, he contacted McLaren and asked to post the entire document.

One can also presume that at the absolute MOST we are dealing with 10-12 days during which time the following had to occur: Stewart contacts Keith and informs him, Keith contacts Mr. McLaren, and Mr. McLaren replies to Keith.
It can also be assumed that this relatively trivial matter does not contain a primary earth shattering degree of urgency to anyone but the pot-stirrers so it is hardly unreasonable, to expect that a few days might have passed between each contact and reply. In light of this, a few weeks grace period might have been considered reasonable before accusations or implications of thievery were put forth.

I do believe it might have gone better if Stewart had mentioned that he had contacted Keith and wheels were in motion to see about putting the document out. A lot of this might have been avoided if that had occurred but I can also see how, without a firm guarantee that it would occur, it was considered best not to offer false hope. Regardless, that does not alleviate others of the responsibility for their actions, in completely jumping the gun and presuming, without a degree or shred of evidence that the document had been stolen and that it was missing. And it does not alleviate them of the responsibility for failing to contact the A-Z authors in the first place and ASKING NICELY to see the document before they started snarking at them.

[Chris]

So how could he possibly have indicated he knew where the document was and who owned it, when he wasn't privy to the conversation?!!

As has been pointed out to me, there has never been any attempt to conceal the identity of the document's owner. The fullest account of the Aberconway notes is in The Ripper Legacy (1987) by Howells and Skinner, from which it was clear that it was held by one of Lady Aberconway's two surviving sons - and that son, Christopher McLaren, was named in the list of acknowledgments at the front of the book.