The Aberconway Version

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Twice Now

Stewart, you don't have to repeat yourself for my benefit - I understand you perfectly - and you have absolutely every right to withhold your copy of the Aberconway letter from Trevor and the rest of us for whatever reason seems valid to you. The point is, you aren't going to publish it! Perhaps Keith Skinner will agree to allow someone to publish his copy of the complete letter, or better yet, perhaps Trevor or another brave soul might approach the owner of the letter, Mr. McLaren, and arrange either to obtain another copy or at the very least, to read the original document and possibly make a longhand copy. But I do agree with the others that further discussion of the issue on this thread is useless, so I for one will not comment further on it.
John

John, twice now I have been within the receipt of one email of posting the Aberconway version. Twice, before this was done, messages that have appeared here have compromised that taking place. I have not withheld my copy of the document - as I have explained the decision for it to be published is not mine.

However, in the face of all this nonsense and unfounded allegations of dishonesty on my part I have now decided that I want no further part of this idiocy and I have simply stated that I shall not be posting it on Keith's behalf, perhaps someone else will - who knows? I have tried my best, believe it or not, to post it here and have failed because others have made totally unfounded allegations and cast aspersions on others.

I am sure that Keith will do the right thing in the circumstances and that he is perfectly capable of reaching his own decision in this regard. Whether Trevor seeks to obtain and publish it himself is his own decision. The right course of action would have been, in my opinion, to approach Keith, Martin or Paul and ask - this wasn't done.

[Dr. John Watson]

Stewart, you don't have to repeat yourself for my benefit - I understand you perfectly - and you have absolutely every right to withhold your copy of the Aberconway letter from Trevor and the rest of us for whatever reason seems valid to you. The point is, you aren't going to publish it! Perhaps Keith Skinner will agree to allow someone to publish his copy of the complete letter, or better yet, perhaps Trevor or another brave soul might approach the owner of the letter, Mr. McLaren, and arrange either to obtain another copy or at the very least, to read the original document and possibly make a longhand copy. But I do agree with the others that further discussion of the issue on this thread is useless, so I for one will not comment further on it.

John

[Stewart P Evans]

Publishing

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?
John

I thought I had made the situation clear. Publishing of the full document (not letter) is not in my hands and it is not my decision as to whether it appears here or anywhere else. However, it is my decision that I shall not be posting the document for the reasons given. I do not like to be accused of dishonesty - have you not followed what has been going on? I am speaking from my own perspective - not anyone else's. You know the amazing thing is that the one person who owns the copy of the document and has been given the right to use it as he wishes - Keith - has been approached by no one! Nor have either of his fellow authors of the A-Z. A truly bizarre situation given what has been alleged by some on these boards.

[Dr. John Watson]

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?

John

[Stewart P Evans]

Saga

What is particularly annoying about this saga is that I, and the authors of the A-Z, have been portrayed by certain parties as some sort of 'click' with something to hide.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Keith Skinner is able to prove that he had taken steps to publish the 'Aberconway version' on these boards before Trevor Marriott tried to make any contact with the Mclaren family. So Keith was more than willing to share something that he had as a result of his own hard work and research conducted many years ago - at a time when there were not so many obsessive Ripperologists around airing their strange views on public Internet forums. Keith properly obtained a copy of the document for his own use in a book he was writing. The copy was his and he had the owner's permission, all those years ago, to use it as he wished.

Keith used the material in his 1987 book fully explaining its provenance. He did not need to publish the whole document verbatim and this was never queried until recently - some 23 years later! Keith, Martin and Paul, in the A-Z, published all of what was considered to be the relevant detail in their 1991 book. Of course they were on a restricted word count imposed by the publisher so only material considered to be relevant was included on many entries. This, again, was never queried until recently - some 19 years later!

Now, we find, the honest work of the authors of the A-Z has been impugned on these boards and suggestions of actual theft made. This is intolerable. It has also been suggested that they have to share their material in full and they are wrong because the full document was not published. This seems to be a mindset that has crept in with the burgeoning of information overkill on the Internet. The truth is that they don't have to share anything if they do not wish to. Least of all with people suggesting some sort of conspiracy - even theft. There are too many people who do little or no research themselves but expect to be given everything that others find.

Now we see that I have been accused of lying on these boards - which I most certainly have not. Those, like Mr. Wood, who make this suggestion should produce what they consider is evidence that I have - or apologise for making such an offensive suggestion. I will then address these 'suggestions'. This strange and aggressive attitude is what has caused the unpleasantness and problems here and it should be clear that had this nastiness not emerged then the full 'Aberconway version' would have appeared on these boards weeks ago (and would have now been under discussion) - I was ready at one stage to do just that at Keith's request. Some may recall that I did actually post an extract from it concerning the Coles murder.

Now we have reached the unfortunate position we are now in thanks to the aggressiveness and obstinacy of certain people. So be it - I have no wish to be involved in such antics.

[Stewart P Evans]

Actually

Hi D'Onston,
Sabotaged would be a better description than self-defeating.
Regards,
Simon

Actually from the first post this thread sabotaged itself and achieved the opposite of the gloating claims it made.

[Simon Wood]

Hi D'Onston,

Sabotaged would be a better description than self-defeating.

Regards,

Simon

[D'Onston]

Yes, some are aiming at their own feet!

Hey All,

This has turned out to be a totally self defeating thread. Amen, Cory. Amen, Mr. Evans.

No wonder Ms. Cornwell considers us an unstable nest of loonies! [and, NO, I'm not a fan of hers.]

It's so sad when we become our own worst enemies!

Best Wishes, Mike