Ripperologist 100: February 2009

[Tom_Wescott]

I do so much work on the comp when I'm at home that I rarely have time to do much reading for enjoyment, which means I've fallen greatly behind on my Rip reading. However, I enjoyed some quiet time with issue #100 last night. I'm not done reading yet, but I'm getting there. Some great artwork. I enjoyed Suzi's red pencil work and Jane's amazing detail (particularly on the old Jewis guy). Stewart's article was totally cool, and Begg's as well. His perceived rivalry with Stewart is always enjoyable to read, but he made some great points. I think it's a shame that the Swanson marginalia needs defending. Begg's input on Anderson is, as always, invaluable.

I was shocked to learn that Mike Covell is so young! For some reason, I thought he'd be an older guy.

More later.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Great cover!

[Supe]

Tom,

Glad that we at Rip were able to make your evening enjoyable--and as we keep saying, this was only part one. But yes, as ever, Stewart managed to pack a lot of worthwhile information into a neat package and Paul's analysis is spot on. You are right that the Marginalia ought not need validation, though it was instructive the way Paul set up the arguments against and then picked them off one after another like so many ducks on a pond.

And as you say, lots more yet to read through and just look at, like the art section and Adam;s photo essay. Though as I sit here looking out on the foot of snow we got last night I can't say I'm all that taken with the "Winter Blunderland."

Don.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes---got it at last so thanks Don and co.Great issue which I am really looking forward to reading -----especially after all the favourable comments above!

Debs,
I have dial up------but all is ok now!
Cheers
Norma

[Tom_Wescott]

Don,

Thanks for reminding me about Adam's photos. The one of Itchy Park was fantastic. Did he walk or drive all over Whitechapel? Like Oklahoma, London would not get a dry snow, so it couldn't have been easy to maneuver through, particularly for people not used to it. I read some of Robin O'Dell's piece, but one gets the impression that he ran out of things to say on the Ripper about 40 years ago. He's a smart chap and probably is filled to the brim with nuggets. Shame he never gets around to sharing them.

It was great hearing from CMD again. It made me wax nostalgic for the days of yore when he edited Ripper Notes. Such a simple time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Ducks on a Pond?

... You are right that the Marginalia ought not need validation, though it was instructive the way Paul set up the arguments against and then picked them off one after another like so many ducks on a pond.
Don.

Right, 'the Marginalia ought not need validation', an interesting comment and given the fact that everything else of a similar nature appears to require validation, I wonder why not.

I have not read Paul's article yet, but, of course, when I do it sounds as if I shall be responding. As regards the problems with the 'marginalia', these are facts and not 'ducks on a pond', e.g. the failure for the full recording of the timeline on its appearance in 1987; the obvious discrepancies between the two sets of writing, i.e. that on page 138 and that on the rear free endpaper; the fact that it was thought necessary to get 'the Home Office document examiner' to confirm the handwriting as Swanson's; the fact that the said examiner drew his conclusion from the sight of photocopies only (thus making the whole exercise pointless); and the fact that the full written result of his findings has never been made public. These are facts and not 'so many ducks on a pond.'

It really is unsatisfactory and many leading authorities agree with me.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Stewart,

Man alive, am I out of the loop. You mean to say you're not comfortable with the provenance of the marginalia? I wasn't aware of that. You'll enjoy Paul's essay in that he takes a few gentle stabs at you in his patented indirect way. I can't wait to read your response to his essay.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Maybe

Hi Stewart,
Man alive, am I out of the loop. You mean to say you're not comfortable with the provenance of the marginalia? I wasn't aware of that. You'll enjoy Paul's essay in that he takes a few gentle stabs at you in his patented indirect way. I can't wait to read your response to his essay.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Maybe I shall be taking some stabs back.

[Ally]

Oh it's awwwwn. Someone pass the popcorn.

[Natalie Severn]

Maybe I shall be taking some stabs back.

Right on Stewart!

[Suzi]

Hi all-
Congrats to all concerned in building this monster edition..I sneakily downloaded it at work and it took for ever but got there in the end. Didn't dare try it on my old dear at home..Instant implosion!
Can't wait for Part 2 !!
Cheers Tom-it's COLOUred pencil though hehe

Suz xx

[Captain Hook]

Hi Stewart,

Man alive, am I out of the loop. You mean to say you're not comfortable with the provenance of the marginalia? I wasn't aware of that. You'll enjoy Paul's essay in that he takes a few gentle stabs at you in his patented indirect way. I can't wait to read your response to his essay.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

The differences of opinion between Paul Begg and Stewart Evans concerning the Swanson marginalia are well known. I am surprised that someone like you - knowledgeable about even the minor arcana of the Ripper case, familiar with every new book published and every magazine issued, an assiduous frequenter of these boards - were until now unaware of these differences.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with holding different opinions and expressing them. Indeed, one cannot but rejoice when scholars of the calibre of Paul and Stewart differ about a fine point or another and even more if they are prepared to air their conflicting opinions. Everyone who is interested in the Ripper case would be grateful for anything to be learnt from two of the leading authors on the case. I believe, however, that you, Tom, may have discerned the discrepancies in Paul's and Stewart's views but failed to recognise the respect they feel for each other.

I might add that you also deserve credit for your patented indirect way of fomenting discord. Transparent, of course, but still patented and indirect. One can only wonder on whose behalf - or, rather, for whose benefit - you do it now.

Cheers
Eduardo

[Tom_Wescott]

Eduardo,

I appreciate that you would assume I know everything there is to know about Stewart's and Paul's differing views, though I'm perplexed why you would then assume I would be unaware of any respect between the two men? Which is it? I know all or nothing? Truth is, I had absolutely no idea until this week that Stewart had reservations about the marginalia. You're right in that I probably SHOULD have, but I didn't.

I'd love to know what discord you're referring to and how I went about fomenting it in this instance? Did I write Begg's essay? Publish it? Do I hold the two giants on a string?

Really, Eduardo, you do yourself no favors here. You've made a very childish and unfounded accusation. And on a RIP thread no less! You should at least create a new thread this nonsense.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Tom
you scratch so must itch.
I thought Hook's post superb and sublime.

[Tom_Wescott]

Of course you did, AP. It was a childish, misinformed, unjustified attack from someone who has enjoyed virtually no correspondence with me...ever. I'm glad you received some joy out of it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Captain Hook]

Tom,

I stand by what I said.

Cheers
Eduardo