|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 10 October 2002
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Behind The Bluff:
Archive through 10 October 2002
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 06:39 pm |        | Martin, I am very sorry that you feel the way you do but I have no intention of getting drawn into a personal hate relationship between you and Melvin. I cannot agree with certain things Melvin stated about you because I do not know the full facts of the situations referred to.I have met you more than half way here.
You know I dont agree with the A to Z entry about him simply because it was a personal attack on his charactor and the A-to Z should should not be used as a platform from which to launch such comments.To be honest I did not think it was you who was responsible for that entry.
Some years ago you came to my defence over untruths which I stood accused off. People stated they were sorry when they found out that they were in the wrong one being Paul Begg.You are a friend of Pauls yet that did not stop you from coming to my defence. You also stated that if I had something to say then I would say it.I would like you to ponder those words and reflect on them.I think Ally was right in stating that this matter should be continued by e-mail if only to bring a close to this situation on the casebook if you agree. I will not post here on this matter anymore and if others have any sense neither will they. |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 06:57 pm | | My apologies, Ivor. I knew the word "help" would be troublesome but I did not know how else to phrase it. I stand corrected and do honestly apologize.
I was unaware that I have been "jumping on the wagon" against you. Only on this Aliffe issue, is my recollection. And we'll have to agree to disagree whether any evidence (as opposed to testimony) has been presented against Aliffe -- who, incidentally, I do not know or have ever communicated with.
Good for Martin in coming to your defense. A disinterested third party is the best way to resolve these issues when one poster attacks another.
And good luck to you both in resolving any issues you may have.
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 11:10 pm | | Dear Ivor,
"I cannot agree with certain things Melvin stated about you" - that's all you needed to say. You've said it. I have no further quarrel with you, as you are perfectly entitled to feel that the A-Z's warning about Melvin is misplaced (although not, as Ally stated, unique: much greater severity is levelled at McCormick's work as a whole, Jean Overton Fuller's book, and anything emanating from Joe "Sickert").
I can't remember whether we have ever corresponded privately, and since I've changed my e-mail server I have no way of checking back. But I hope nothing I've said has led anyone to think that I was accusing you of ungratefully biting a hand that had fed you time or help. I make no such claim; I only felt it impossible to continue the sort of friendly exchanges we have enjoyed on the boards, (and I now trust will enjoy again), if you endorsed the view that (e.g.) Paul Begg and I place dishonest posts on the boards.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Carl Dodd
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 12:07 am | | Ally,
I enjoy reading the way that you interpret things. Your view seems to be right-on-target. Keep it up. I like what you do.
Ivor,
I know that this event with Andy Aliffe has hurt you a lot. That is a shame. In our conversations back and forth I knew, long ago, that you put your heart into the book you wrote and the research you did. To have your work attacked in such a fashion just is NOT right. That was why I posted once before in your defense: I knew from previous contact (long before Aliffe's comments of 2002) that you had tried to make everything 100% accurate and perfect. Don't let this situation sour you on people or events. Ivor, you and I got off to a rather mean start with each other. We tended to growl right off at the mention of each other's names. I suspect strongly that at one time I would have heard you say my name with an expletive attached so that the expletive and the name sounded like one single word. Sort of like when people from the southern United States talk about northeners. They're called "D*mned-Yankees." It sounds like one word instead of two. Any way, hang in there.
Melvin Harris,
Let me get this straight, you've written numerous books and had them published? You've researched JtR to come to the conclusion that D'Onston did the crimes? Have you not regaled all of us, by messengers, to the point of boredom, about how smart you are? Why is it that you can't figure out how to use a computer? Something is amiss here. What is wrong with this photo? Could it be that if he can't solve one mystery, the computer, then maybe he hasn't solved the other mystery involving JtR? C'mon, Melvin! Get in here with the rest of us. Go modern. Go to some of the chat rooms. You have fans, and other people, who would like to hear DIRECTLY from you. Ivor and Stewart Evans can help you learn all about these new-fangled computers. Once you do, it is sort of like typing on a typewriter. We know you know how to do that or your books would never have been written. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 12:52 am | | | Martin, I am glad this situation has been sorted out. I was sitting down to dinner on the quiz night at Bournmouth and got into a conversation with the guy sitting next to me. He stated Sickert had sent him some information relating to the ripper murders and Sickert led him to believe that the information was his own work.The information related to distances from site to site and symbols etc. I was amazed to learn that the guy was telling me about my own research !! He promised that he would post me the papers Sickert gave him which he did so. When I saw the papers in question I found that they were my own work. When I started my research I was in the habit of placing my name and the copyright on each corner of every page of my work. On the papers sent to me each corner of every page was cut out and my name along with the copyright was missing. Years ago I sent Sickert some information about my work and it transpired that he started to pass it off as his own because he saw that it could be used to fit in with his story. Then I was informed by a friend that he heard Sickert on a radio programme passing off my work as his own!!! When I asked Beadle in the company of others what a person like Sickert was doing at the conference he replied, "He is good for a laugh" !! All the time people like Sickert are encouraged to peddle their lies and tall tales this subject will always remain a trap for the gullible.And it certainly does not do the subject any good either for such people do more harm to it than good. It is not without good cause that this subject has such a bad reputation and it is about time efforts were made to clean it up. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 01:13 am | | | Hi Carl,Hope all is well with you and I agree with what you wrote about Ally as it happens.I know we did not get on to start with but look how things have turned out for the better.Your advice will be taken you can be assured of that. I am just finishing the final proof reading today as you can imagine what a relief that is after all these years. Thanks for the post Carl and God bless. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 06:16 am | | Dear Ivor,
Strewth! I knew "Sickert" to be a rogue, but I didn't think he would stoop to stealing other people's work that he had been shown!
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 06:59 am | | Yaz,
(And though I am loathe to bring it up again when all is come and settled and probably shouldn't)
I dislike the pattern of attacking the messenger. You say that Martin had a right to know what Ivor's opinions were on this subject because of their affiliation however a few months ago, someone posted for Melvin using the Melvin account and Martin made posts demanding to know who the anonymous poster was and what his or her allegiance was. This turned into another two day upset. Martin does attack the poster who posts for Melvin though he claims to ignore Mel Harris. This is not right and could be seen as a tactic to scare people into not posting for Melvin. I was looking for the thread to reference but I can't find it.
The point is now moot. Both of our resident authors who rely on pony express have been issued their own accounts and their posters instructed to use them. It is no one's business who the posters are or will be from now on. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 07:07 am | | Oh, Ally, Stop Stirring it!
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 07:19 am | | Sorry luv,
Don't think I will. Now that you have harangued Ivor into giving you what you want, I feel obliged to harangue you into admitting you attack the poster in lieu of Mel. You of course don't have to give an opinion on the rightness or wrongness of your actions.
Cheers,
Ally |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 10:14 am | | Hi Ally,
Of course I wasn't attacking the poster in lieu of Mel. My barely printable opinions of Melvin were once to be found on boards which I trust have now disappeared into the garbage bins of archiving. I cannot envisage him ever making the kind of apology which would restore frostily polite relations between us. His equally unflattering opinions of me will certainly continue to stand, as I maintain that I was entirely correct in the account I gave of his tendency to add unjustified moral and personal conclusions to his disapproval of other writers' scholarly practices and judgements; I was correct in deciding that this tendency remains dangerously misleading to inexperienced readers who may be over-impressed by his reputation; and correct in maintaining that by drawing attention to it I make no such abusive moral reflection on his character and abilities as (for example) he is now making on Robert Smith's and Shirley Harrison's on another board. Melvin can draw comnfort from the fact that you, among others, think his umbrage is justified. And I can take comfort from the fact that still others, think my criticism of him fair and valid. And, happily, Melvin continues to offer documentation on the boards which anyone may measure against the words in the A-Z, and reach their own conclusions as to whether my judgement is fair or biassed. I do not expect, meanwhile, that anything I say will induce Melvin to be polite to or about me, and he holds a similar view of my intransigence.
The situation with Ivor is quite different. There is no evidence at all that he ever wished to upset me and break off cordial relations. But he posted a claim that (among other unpleasant faults) Paul Begg and I post dishonest messages on the boards. He did not reflect that merely (correctly) attributing the words to Melvin did not indicate that he disagreed with them. Unless I see very considerable advantage to other readers in maintaining a particular discourse on the boards, I have no intention of exchanging amicable posted messages with anyone who leaves the slightest suspicion that he thinks my posts are dishonest (or in some other way morally substandard), and I, rightly, did not think Ivor had appreciated the strength of my feelings in this matter. I have never claimed that my feelings are inherently justified. I have allowed the possibility that I am too touchy. But those are my feelings, and anyone who wants to maintain civilized discourse with me has to respect them. This is not a matter of bullyragging Ivor into submission, as I don't think he has submitted in any important way: he hasn't, for example, been asked to retract anything he thinks; merely to confirm that some of the things he posted on some one else's behalf were not posted with any degree of approval.
Why do you feel "obliged" to demand that I give the description of my actions you want? I am reminded of Harold Abrahams' sister-in-law saying to him, "I must speak my mind, Harold!" To which he replied, "Why must you, Ruth? If I said, 'I must be sick on your carpet,' you'd very quickly say, 'Oh no you mustn't!' All you are really saying is that you want to be unpleasant."
Equally I say that all you are doing is stirring a settled issue quite unnecessarily, in order to gratify some need of your own which has no value for other people.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 10:55 am | | Gee Martin,
Well, I may just be touchy and oversensitive but that is the way I feel and I take umbrage over someone demanding to know who a poster is or what a poster's opinion is on a topic that they did not author and have previously said they don't want to get in the middle of. Your continued carping on the posters rather than the author is, in my opinion, unjustified and as long as you feel the need to harass the posters, which I consider to be needless stirring, I shall point out that I find it inappropriate, which you consider needless stirring. And I doubt we will ever agree with the others point of view. But so be it. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 11:46 am | | Very altruistic of you, Ally!
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 01:22 pm | | Hey Ally:
If what you say is true, I agree that the identity of the anonymous postal agent for Melvin (or whoever) should remain anonymous.
I didn't see that being the case here though. It does not quite fit the pattern which you rightly pledge to eliminate from the Casebook. That, I know, is merely my opinion. I think every one of the posters to this thread has acted honorably, according to their own conception of that term -- with one notable and absentee exception. (But, to me, that's just Melvin's style of discourse on this "lesser" medium of e-message boards. He is using any means necessary to defend his honor, as he sees that concept in regards to himself -- and most of Melvin's discourse here as been centered around himelf -- or his honor, honesty, proferssionalism, what have you. His intent is noble and understandable; his expression is too often less-than-desirable; I would argue self-defeating -- just MHO.)
Personally, I would have been much more tolerant of the whole situation -- even Melvin's expression if I had been his reference point, as I trust people to read not only the words but, for want of a better cliche, "between the lines" -- BUT I can understand why ALL of the participants in this thread have expressed their chagrin, dismay, and displeasure. I learn more about everyone's motivations with almost every post.
I think the rules of posting for another have been clearly enunciated and in the future, I hope they will be followed. And when in doubt, messengers should contact the moderators FIRST before posting for another. If I see people I know and respect misbehaving in the manner you describe, I will not hesitate to support your intervention.
And while I do not know Melvin, I still respect the man (and probably always will) for his intelligence, diligence, what he's contributed to the field, while refusing to look away from speech or forms of expression that detract from both this venue of JtR studies and, maybe most important of all, from himself as others MAY perceive him (which is, again, JMHO).
All's well that ends well as long as love's labor is not lost and people resist the urge to exact measure for measure...and no one believes that the Bard actually had anything to do with Titus Andronicus (Marlowe must have slipped him a mickey if he did contribute to that mess o' limbs!) and thus use it for an example for their own behavior on the Casebook.
Yaz
(who will now valiantly resist the urge to agonize over the endless, endless, endless -- did I mention how annoyingly endless? -- puns and wordplay of LLL now that he's feeling a tad Shakespearean this afternoon) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 01:42 pm | | Could someone answer the following questions for me please as I have misplaced some reference papers.
1. Was it Anderson or Warren who wrote to the Home Office on 23 October 1888, " That five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary. "
2. Who made the recommendation to arrest every prostitute on the streets after midnight?
3. Is it true that Anderson and Swanson both wrote that they could identify the reporter who wrote the Dear Boss letter?
4. Was it Littlechild who was the only person who named the reporter as Tom Bulling or Bullen?
5. Was it Anderson or Warren who stated that he had spent a day and a half examining the evidence, which proved correct in every respect ? |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 03:05 pm | | Ivor -
I believe the answers to questions 2, 3 and 4 are Anderson; no, only Anderson; and only Littlechild. I ought to know no. 1, but am nowhere near my research at the moment, and so fully expect to be blown out of the water by those sharper than Your Humble Correspondent. But if no-one else answers, I shall go to my desk this afternoon and give you chapter and verse.
All the best,
CMD
nb - I have asked you this in an accompanying letter with the new issue of RN just mailed, but would you be kind enough to ask your publisher to send me a review copy of your new book? |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 03:20 pm | | Hi Ivor,
In relation to 4, I don't think Swanson said anything about the journalist. Macnaghten said something to the effect that he had always thought he could detect the stained forefinger of a journalist in the letter, and said that he had shrewd suspicions a year later as to the identity of the author. Littlechild said it was generally believed in Scotland Yard that Bullen (sc. Bulling) was the author, adding that he had more privileges than any other journalist, and Munro (sc. Monro), when AC, relied on his integrity. Littlechild himself, however, thought that the idea must have come from Bulling's boss, Charles Moore.
Keith Skinner, I believe, came across a record of Bulling and Moore visiting the Black Museum, and so was able to guess that one of them must be the mysterious journalist named in the Littlechild letter before Stewart had shown it around. That is the only support I know for Littlechild's recollection that Bulling was privileged.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 04:03 pm | | Hi Christopher, Many thanks and if no one else answers I would be most grateful for your offer. By the way I have added one more question to the list making it 5.I will sort out the review copy for you right away.
Martin, Many thanks for that information which is a great help. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 04:29 pm | | Hello Ally,
If I decided to post the remarks of a person under my name I would hardly find it insulting or unfair to ask if I supported the thesis of the remarks.
Assume for a moment Ally that a friend of mine said he did not have internet access and wanted to post a scathing attack upon your scholarship and credibility. I proceed to do so with the caveat that I am doing this for someone who does not have internet access.
Now, it would seem to me both fitting and fair that you might inquire whether I support the remarks of my friend.
I personally would never post personal attacks launched by someone else under my signature - especially if I did not agree with them.
Rich |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 06:14 pm | | | Christopher, No 1. Was Anderson. Do you know No 5. ? |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 10:42 pm | | Ivor - number 5 was Anderson, and the conclusion he claimed was correct was to the effect that the Ripper was a poor Polish Jew from the district; the grounds given being apparently the rather weak ones that these people would never give up one of their own to the police. (Surely they must have had something stronger to reach any definite conclusion?)
You may think it important, too, that he said this in 1910. Many people think it undercuts his subsequent certainty that he commented in a memorandum in October 1888 on the extraordinary fact that the killer had left no clue
Sorry I overlooked 5 in your previous posting.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 07:49 am | | As far as I know, Anderson claimed that a certain class of these people would never give up one of them to the Gentile Justice.
He did not use the word Police.
May I have missed something ?
Gentile justice refers of course to the laws in the hosting countries.
One of the teachings of the Talmud, and maybe the most important in laying the basis of the "Talmudic justice" is that you are not always to respond of your acts before whatever human justice.
I think that, as often, Anderson spoke also this time on very strong grounds.
Good Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 11:23 am | | Hi Rich,
Being postwoman for Keith Skinner, I think I can see two sides to this argument. 
For me it all comes down to cause and effect. If I were to post something written by Keith that I knew was going to offend the recipient, I would also know that a plea of "Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger", could only work so far in practice. So while Ally might defend me to the hilt, it would not be realistic of me to expect the recipient to express his/her undying respect and gratitude towards me for typing up the offensive words and delivering them up for public scrutiny. (After all, even a postman knowingly delivering a poison pen letter would be putting it through the recipient's private letter box, not putting it straight onto the front page of the guy's newspaper first.)
In other words, anything and everything we choose to post here, on our own, or anyone else's behalf, comes with a risk that the recipient may not think warm thoughts about us as a result - it's as simple as that. It's our choice whether we post someone else's message out of loyalty to that person, or because we are not concerned about what the recipient thinks of us anyway, or whether we tell the person to get stuffed and find another mug to do their dirty work. And therefore perhaps we can't really grumble if we end up sharing at least a bit of any backlash.
To take up your own example, a hypothetical fellow poster and friend, temporarily away from the boards, asks me to post a message to Ally, telling her what he thinks of the content of some of her posts. If I agree to do so, Ally's principles may not allow her to criticise me openly for it, but the damage is done and it's my own silly fault and my personal responsibility if she reacts badly towards me, privately or publicly, as a result.
So - I choose not to do it and risk offending my friend, in preference to definitely offending Ally. A true friend will understand and respect that choice, won't they?
Does that make sense?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 02:01 pm | | | Martin, Thanks for the answer to 5 which was the important one.You never missed 5 Martin because I added it as an after thought some time after posting the first 4 questions.Again many thanks. |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 25 July 2002 - 07:25 pm | | With regards to point 5., here is a section of a report written by Sir Charles Warren on 15th September 1888.
"I am convinced that the Whitechapel murder case is one which can be successfully grappled with if it is systematically taken in hand. I go so far as to say that I could myself in a few days unravel the mystery provided I could spare the time & give individual attention to it..."
Is this the quote we are looking for?
Regards, V. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 08:06 pm | | | Hi Viper,Many thanks for the post which was very near the mark for it was the above statement you have given which led to question 5. Warren stated he could unravel the mystery provided he could spare the time. Then I remembered another statement by someone which read that he "had spent a day and a half examining the evidence, which proved correct in every aspect." I thought it could have been Warren due to the statement he made and which you kindly posted.It was in fact Anderson who stated he had spent a day and a half examining the evidence.Here we have a man such as Warren making a statement that he could solve the case in a few days if he could find the time to do so !!!! I dont think I need to go into the implications of Warren making such a stupid statement.With men such as him in charge making such comments it comes as no surprise to me that the case was never solved.I dont know what planet he was on at the time. Even in his chosen profession as a soldier he could not get it right for he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of men in the Boer War due to sheer stupidity. If I had been placed under his command I would have looked upon him as the enemy and would probably have switched sides or shot him just to survive!! |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 01 September 2002 - 05:18 pm | | THE DATES THAT COUNT
Let us get a few things straight. I do not comment on anything that appears on the internet until I have a print-out in my hands. But even if I were on the internet this would make little difference to the timing of any postings of mine. I am swamped with work; my writings, investigations, instrument making, and my home life have to come first. So I just do not have the time to catch up with the MANY misleading items that I find on the print-outs. And I marvel at the spare time that some people seem to have. But if I were to stop my occasional corrective posts this would be one more victory for misinformed and misleading posters. This Ripper venture would become a dumping ground for baseless charges and false information and a snare for the unwary. Thus the simple solution is for me to identify by name, date and time, the posts I am replying to. Delays then will not matter.
In the Andy case two postings on 20th July 2002. 02:28 pm and 09:49 pm (Yaz and Ally) raise the question of time and dates. Well, I imagined that I had given enough of those, but let me try once more. Take note of these dates. They are beyond challenge. Take Andy's claim that HE had discovered Bernard O'Donnell's manuscript which had remained "un-seen and un-read since the end of World War 2". This is untrue in every aspect. The manuscript did not exist in 1945. In fact, the writing did not even start until twelve years AFTER the war ended. O'Donnell's words are explicit. He wrote: "In 1947 I retired from Fleet Street and for the next ten years was engaged in the writing of a number of books all of which were commissioned. It was not until 1957 that I found time to really get down to my Ripper story and sort out the material which had been cast aside for so long."
When completed, this manuscript, started on in 1957, eventually reached Harrap and was read first by J Gaute and later, in 1968, by Richard Whittington-Egan, who then worked in Fleet Street and was one of Bernard's friends. After O'Donnell's death, Richard quoted the crucial sections of this allegedly "un-seen, un-read" manuscript in his own work, published in 1975. In turn, I used part of Cremers' testimony in my 'Investigating the Unexplained', written in 1983. Richard was also responsible for giving me the information on Bernard's son, Peter, and the location of the manuscript. His 'Casebook on Jack the Ripper' and his personal testimony, proves that I am recording a sequence of dateable, real-life events.
My July 1987 trip to the London Hospital in search of D'Onston's records was detailed in my report to Yorkshire Television and can be vouched for by the TWO medical men involved. While the crucial leads that uncovered D'Onston's occupation, his PRO records, the shooting affair and the involvement of Bridlington, were in my hands as early as 1981. I gave photocopies of this material to Richard, who remembers the event well. This essential material was unknown to Ripperphiles until I unearthed it. Thus when I say that my statements are not open to contradiction, this simply means that I am presenting verifiable facts, not myths.
My tribute to Andy should not be misconstrued. It refers to an occasion in the dark Colindale viewing rooms when his eyes were gravelly and weary from scanning yard upon yard of microfilm; others around him were giving up the fight and nodding off with fatigue. Yes, he was eager to help, but none of the work he undertook was crucial and what work he completed came far too late to be of use where it was needed, since my second Ripper book had to be in manuscript by the end of 1988. I then had no intention of writing another one.
Time-wasting as all this is, we now have some telling revelations from Fido. I said that his book was not a scholarly one and he has now conceded this in his exchange with Tom Wescott. And he has now confessed that the wording of the infamous A-Z entry was his. Now, he earlier stated (21 April 01) that the last section of that entry was prompted by my use of the word "integrity", which "tended to suggest that Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison were venal". He then later admitted that he did not know that the 'integrity issue' had been raised not by me, but by Feldman's side-kicks in 1992. But BEGG knew of that early attack on my reputation. He wrote to me on that very point on August 4th 1994 stating that he was not responsible for the slurs. Yet we now learn that Begg stood by and allowed Fido to stay in ignorance of these proven slurs. Hence Fido's blunder, which is automatically protected from adverse comment in the A-Z. This results in the truth behind his cowardly actions remaining largely unknown.
In this context note well that the parcel Postman Ivor delivered consisted of an accurate account of Fido's OWN libellous words and actions, plus a lengthy quote from HIS 1987 hardback. Yet Fido uses the analogy of the delivery of a parcel of excrement when fulminating on this issue. What a quaint judgement on his own outpourings!
Finally, since Fido is quick to defend the English language, perhaps he could explain why he claims that I awarded "fulsome praise" to Andy? Does he know just what 'fulsome' means? |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Monday, 02 September 2002 - 12:11 am | | Greetings all:
Fulsome is often used to mean “offensively flattering or insincere.” But the word is also used, particularly in the expression fulsome praise, to mean simply “abundant,” without any implication of excess or insincerity. This usage is etymologically justified but may invite misunderstandings in contexts in which a deprecatory interpretation could be made. The sentence I offer you my most fulsome apologies may raise an eyebrow, where the use of an adjective like full or abundant would leave no room for doubt as to the sincerity of the speaker's intentions.
This information came from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
So, Mr. Fido could have meant it either way. Only he knows for certain.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 02 September 2002 - 08:30 am | | I congratulate Melvin on his change in tone but I still am unsatisfied that my request for information on what Aliffe was assigned to do and why Melvin waited two years for the result; what was the correlation between Aliffe's claim of finding documentary evidence of Stephenson's involvement in the English volunteers in Garibaldi's army -- even though others see this as a "minor" point in the Stephenson story, my reading of Melvin's "True Face..." makes this evidence crucial to Stephenson becoming a killer/serial killer; the timeline for Melvin's requests for Aliffe's services, what Aliffe turned over to Melvin, and when Melvin made public utterance based on the speculation behind the research versus having the evidence in hand.
Perhaps we can accept Melvin's versions of the timeline for the events he chooses to explain in his post, but I note there is still no corroborative evidence of even that info (for instance, the "allegedly "un-seen, un-read" [O'Donnell] manuscript" is still open to question -- how much of the manuscript had Whittington-Egan actually seen/read beyond the quote which could have come from O'Donnell but not from direct viewing of the "manuscript" in question; other such clarifying minutiae accumulates).
I would point out to interested readers that much more has been asked of Melvin that has not yet and continues not to be provided regarding his working relationship with Aliffe.
"But if I were to stop my occasional corrective posts this would be one more victory for misinformed and misleading posters." -- Melvin Harris, Sunday, 01 September 2002 - 05:18 pm.
Ditto. -- Yaz, Monday, 02 September 2002 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 03 September 2002 - 04:58 am | | Yaz,
I hope that you are keeping well, it's some time since we were in touch.
I think that I may be able to answer a point that you raise in your post above. You state:-
"...I note there is still no coroborative evidence of even that info (for instance, the "allegedly "un-seen, un-read" [O'Donnell] manuscript" is still open to question -- how much of the manuscript had Whittington-Egan actually seen/read beyond the quote which could have come from O'Donnell but not from direct viewing of the "manuscript" in question...)"
This point is not open to question. Richard Whittington-Egan is a very close friend of mine, as is Melvin, and the full facts were reproduced in Richard's very rare [only 700 copies were printed] book A Casebook on Jack the Ripper, London, Wildy & Sons Ltd., 1975. I can tell you that Richard had, in his possession, O'Donnell's complete 372-page manuscript (completed in 1958) and Richard published, over 24 pages (pp. 73 to 97) virtually the whole of the Stephenson story and included:-
1. A full mention of Stephenson's book The Patristic Gospels.
2. The story of how O'Donnell came to research Stephenson.
3. The first identification of 'Roslyn D'Onston' as Robert Donston Stephenson.
4. The details from Stephenson's birth certificate.
5. The full story told by Vittoria Cremers about D'Onston.
6. The Borderland mention of Stephenson by W.T. Stead in the 1896 piece, with the following footnote - "There is no evidence that D'Onston was ever actually arrested, although he did tell Mrs. Cremers that on two occasions he was taken in, like so many hundreds of others, for questioning."
7. Full details of the official papers on the Marsh, Stephenson and Roots affair.
8. The full background to Crowleys mention of the Cremers story, and claiming to know 'the Ripper' as well as Betty May's novel (Richard owns Crowley's own, annotated copy of Tiger Woman).
9. The entry from The Medical Directory of 1888 on Dr. Morgan Davies, (Stephenson's own suspect for the murders).
So you can see that almost the full Stephenson story was in the public domain as early as 1975. And it was Richard who encouraged Melvin to carry out further research on Stephenson, which he did. The final result was Melvin's definitive 1994 book The True Face of Jack the Ripper, which added even more about Stephenson together with a few corrections of past misconceptions. However, all must recognise that it was Richard Whittington-Egan who first presented Stephenson to the reading public as a fleshed out suspect.
I can assure you that Melvin does not lie in his posts, but he possibly assumes that his readers know more than they actually do, and that they are aware of material he has posted in the past.
I realise that your quest is for the correct facts and as much information as possible (very commendable Yaz), and I hope that this is of some assistance to you.
All good wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 03 September 2002 - 05:44 am | | Yaz,
The following also may be of assistance to you from Melvin's book The Ripper File, London, W H Allen, 1989, page 174 (Note on Bibliography) [inter alia]:-
" D'Onston's Customs Service records can be found at the Public Record Office at Kew. To date he has only been located in one Census Return, that for Kingston upon Hull of 1861. On that return he is shown as living with his family in Sculcoates. Under 'Rank, Profession, or Occupation' he is recorded as 'Lieutenant Southern Army Italy, retired'."
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 03 September 2002 - 10:00 am | | Hey Stewart:
I'm well and hope you and yours are too. I saw you on a JtR television program; as well as Paul Begg (who looked all-too-comfortably at home in a pub, I think). Well done! I hope you get royalties for your appearance!
Thanks for all the information it is very helpful. I wish Melvin wouldn't do this...I realize you've probably missed the two previous attempts he's made. We still don't know what it was Melvin asked Aliffe to do; why he waited two years (!!!) for the results; if he denies Aliffe's claim that he [Aliffe] found that service record; etc.
I don't think Melvin is lying but surely you understand that events of this kind are open to interpretation (based upon factors such as the amount of info Melvin assumes a person already knows, etc.). There doesn't seem to be enough clear-cut evidence presented to support any claim against Aliffe on such a serious scholarly charge.
And after all the time that has passed since the alleged events, even the claims Aliffe makes/made, it makes it that much harder to approximate anything like "the truth." Melvin has achieved too much to try and "recover" the little that Aliffe claims, especially if it risks tarnishing Melvin's already considerable achievements.
Yaz |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 03 September 2002 - 12:56 pm | | Yaz,
Great to hear from you, we are keeping quite well thanks, and hope you are too. Yes, Paul and I sometimes do these TV interviews, but I don't think that either of us will be getting rich from it.
Only too pleased to help with the information. I was merely trying to help by answering a query on a matter of fact that you had, whilst at the same time steering clear of any contentious disputes that are going on. I've been having enough problems on another thread in this regard as you may have noticed.
I am not aware of the intricacies of the past working relationship between Melvin and Andy and it really isn't my place to comment upon that. However, I do agree with you that the more that is factually known about these events then the easier it is to fully understand any areas of contention.
That said, I am always happy to present any factual material that may assist, such as details I give above of what has been published and when. The other matter is really an area that only Melvin or Andy are in a position to comment upon.
But, if you have any factual queries that you think I may be able to assist with fire away.
All the best,
Stewart |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 07:03 am | | The last two numbers of Ripperologist have just reached me, and so I have just read Adrian Morris's account of Andy at the Cloak and Dagger. Since Andy says explicitly there that it was his communicating with O'Donnell's son that extracted the O'Donnell ms from an attic, I don't think any amount of quibbling about the dates at which Bernard O'Donnell wrote it and the occasions when Richard Whittington-Egan and Joe Gaute saw it can undermine Andy's importance in bringing the precise document back to the centre of Donstonian discussion. Unless it is claimed that Andy was lying, or it is claimed that it was not his simple idea to contact the O'Donnell family, but he was carrying out somebody else's suggestion.
What all that ill-bred stuff about "Fido" and "Begg" is at the end of "Harris's" last post, I really can't fathom. And with the happy arrival of a new batch of students ready to look at Burns and Blake and Milton and Hogg and Goethe and Bulgakov, I am not wasting my time going back to old archived posts to find out. Readers of past Harrisian fulminations about Paul and me and all our works will know how much attention to pay to this round.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 12:38 pm | | Hi Martin,
I hope that you are keeping well. As you appear to be unaware of the full details regarding the locating of the O'Donnell manuscript, I hope that the following will clarify things for you.
As I have already detailed Richard Whittington-Egan had the whole O'Donnell manuscript in his possession in the early 1970's and published the full D'Onston material in his 1975 book. So it has all been in the public domain since 1975, and should not be described as 'unpublished', as it was in the Ripperologist article that you refer to. Also, it is misleading to talk of Richard merely "seeing the said document in 1973..." as he more than saw it. He read the whole thing and published the relevant part, in full, at the time. So the dates are important to quote.
Now, I do not wish to take sides in this but I do want to see the correct story told. I will explain it as I understand it. Melvin wanted to track down the original manuscript as he wished to use it extensively in his 1994 book, and he wanted to secure the copyright in order to do this. This would have been around 1993 when he was writing The True Face of Jack the Ripper. To this end he set about tracking down Bernard O'Donnell's son. On speaking with Richard Whittington-Egan he found that O'Donnell's son was the novelist Peter O'Donnell, author of Modesty Blaise.
Melvin was in touch with Andy who had been assisting with his research. He telephoned Andy and explained the Peter O'Donnell connection and asked Andy if he could look up Peter O'Donnell's publisher's telephone number in order for Melvin to contact O'Donnell who, Melvin knew, lived on the south coast. Melvin intended to make first contact with Peter O'Donnell and to negotiate with him over the manuscript.
The next thing Melvin heard from Andy was that Andy had followed up what Melvin had told him and had gone even further by contacting Peter O'Donnell himself and arranging for the document to be copied for Melvin.
The upshot of all this was that Melvin then spoke with Peter O'Donnell and came to an arrangement whereby Melvin purchased the manuscript outright and Peter O'Donnell granted Melvin the copyright of the material. So, Melvin now holds the full copyright on the Cremers material as rendered by O'Donnell in his manuscript. And Melvin grants permission for anyone to quote from 'the Vittoria Cremers' memoirs' in return for a payment to the NSPCC.
I really don't think that it could be clearer that Melvin was prime instigator in both locating and publishing the said material on D'Onston. It appeared in full form in his 1994 book. So, it can be seen that Andy actually assisted Melvin in the recovery of the document. And it was Melvin who ascertained the identity of Bernard O'Donnell's son, and how to make contact with him.
I do hope that this helps to clarify the situation with what has, apparently, become a very confused story.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 06:55 pm | | Very confused indeed, Stewart. Your info and Martin's reference to the Ripperologist issues seem to jibe from my reading. I never had the impression that Aliffe was "stealing Melvin's thunder" so to speak. Now that Melvin can read what Aliffe is reported as saying, and that it doesn't contradict our understanding from Stewart's account, hopefully Melvin will feel differently about this situation. People tend to forget that, to my knowledge, Melvin does not read these boards and only responds to items brought to his attention, therefore the possibilities for misunderstandings abound.
I also always had the impression that Martin was very forthcoming about the infamous A-Z entry: that he wrote it; that his co-authors concurred in his opinions and the wording. I also thought we all understood that a critical opinion expressed about a portion or a tendency in another's work is by no means libellous or slanderous -- it may be right, wrong, or somewhere in-between, but it is legitimate expression and its "weight" as criticism must be determined by each individual reader. I understand Melvin and others demonstratively disagree with that opinion, but beyond stating said disagreement, it serves no purpose to cast the expression in a light more suited to muck-raking scandal sheets and tabloids (I hope I'm not confusing or insulting any non-American readers who know what I mean by my references to certain types of journalism -- for example, the American publication The National Enquirer is always inventing scurrilous quotes and stories about everything and everyone.)
But this enquiring mind wants to know (a pun on the The National Enquirer's slogan):
What is the NSPCC? In the U.S., we have the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Is the NSPCC the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children? If it is, and as poor as I am right now (who knows if I'll even be employed next week!), I'm prepared to send a necessarily small contribution to that society in Melvin's name and in his honor in exchange for peace regarding the Aliffe Issue and the A-Z Debate...not to mention it would be a damn worthy cause all on its own.
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 05:21 am | | Hi Stewart,
Many thanks for that full account. Given that Andy gave Melvin the assistance you describe in bringing the O'Donnell original back into the full public domain, I am still surprised that Melvin now wishes to insist that his compliment to Andy's industry referred solely to Andy's ocular tenacity in Colindale: this rather smacks of a mean-spirited effort to withdraw generous praise originally offered, just as the attempt in Melvin's post to suggest that Andy's casual mis-dating 'since WWII' seems to be a silly and calculated effort to bring Andy's work into disprepute as though Andy had meant that date to be weighed and considered. Personally I will always forgive those who are some decades younger than myself for confusing dates of things that happened before they were born. But I fear that now Melvin has decided that his former collaborator is An Enemy, no shift will be too low for trying to discredit him. All of a piece, I fear, with the silly suggestion that my work is unscholarly because I have no hesitation in admitting slips and errors, (whereas students of the boards will know that it is as impossible to get Melvin to confess his mistakes and changes of mind as it is to draw blood from a stone). There is probably a name for wriggling over one's own work and belittling other people's, but it certainly isn't scholarship. And maybe it relates to the fact that Melvin only makes a lighthearted crack if it is at some one else's expense, and doesn't seem able to laugh at himself ever. As a rough general point (relating, too, to something you said in your interesting controversy with Ivor) I would myself say that repeating other people's work and bringing into public light documents that have previously been 'described' or 'almost fully printed' really is worthwhile scholarship, even if it is less exciting than making original discoveries in unexamined material. Work needs to be checked by repetition: if Keith hadn't gone back over the infirmary records Charles Nevin and felt we had both checked, it would still be believed that Aaron Kosminski went to the asylum without passing through the workhouse infirmary. Richard Feynman (the witty Nobel prize winner whom many people consider the best theoretical physicist of the 20th century) has some scathing remarks to make about scientists who accept other laboratories' published results without repeating their experiments, and I think a similar scholarly duty obtains in the field of humanities. So Melvin as prime mover and instigator, and Andy as his active agent, both deserve serious praise for getting the document out of the O'Donnell attic. All the best, Martin F |
Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 09 October 2002 - 01:46 pm | | FALSE-MEMORY LANE
Fido has two great problems that mar his ability both to see straight, and to act fairly. He relies on a wretchedly poor memory; his own description of it reads "...that dreadful sieve my memory." Then he fails to read the material he chooses to comment on. If put on the spot, he finds a get-out formula to account for his silence.
A classic example of his false-memory pontification has recently appeared on the Stephenson board (a board I never bother with). On 25 Aug 2002-03:40 he tells us "Bear in mind that the whole idea of Stephenson creeping out from his hospital ward to commit murders...was only proposed as a hypothesis to keep the D'Onston theory alive after Stephen Willment had shown that D'Onston's hospitalisation actually cut across the murder period." Now this is more than misleading. It is a lie. It is in direct conflict with all the proveable dates involved. And Fido knew this as early as June 1994, since I wrote to him as soon as I heard of Willment's blunders.
It may have taken Andy two years to get them, but I knew about D'Onston's hospital records as early as June 1990, four years BEFORE my 'True Face' was published and years before Mr Willment even came onto the scene. Yet even the idea that D'Onston could have used the London Hospital as a bolt-hole was toyed with as early as 1987, after I discovered an illustrated story in the 'Evening News'. This 1949 piece involved Amelia Lewis who claimed that she had been used as a Ripper decoy by the detectives at Arbour Square. Her beat involved walking around the rear perimeter of the hospital.
It struck me then that a hospital could provide a grand bolt-hole, but at that time the records were not available for my scrutiny. Since the needed dates and details of D'Onston's stay at the London Hospital were not known, this idea was simply noted for future consideration. In 1990 it suddenly became a strong possibility when D'Onston's 'illness' became known, along with his dates. Thus it was never connected in any way with Mr Willment's fanciful ideas: they emerged YEARS LATER. Actually 'fanciful' is too mild a word, since he made the false claim that D'Onston was a 'bedfast' patient. Now 'bedfast' means confined to bed; it is a term that fits someone with broken legs; or someone recovering from major surgery and similar crippling states. But it is unreal to apply it to a private patient registered as suffering from neurosthsenia, and taking a rest-cure. It was a verdict based on ignorance, but, without making a single check, FIDO FELL FOR IT, and the 1994 edition of the A-Z carried an absurd entry stating that D'Onston was a bedfast patient "...which prima facie, establishes his innocence." Fido was alerted to this absurdity and the misleading words "bedfast patient" were WITHDRAWN from the 1996 edition. So much for Fido's attempt to re-write history in his efforts to disparage my work.
In that very same correspondence of June 1994, I first learned of Andy's aberrations when Fido wrote "In the matter of D'Onston's hospitalisation-and a great many other important Donstonian facts and documents-we have Andy Aliffe claiming decisive priority of research, and wondering a little plaintively why he has no recognition for it in the A to Z." I wrote back to Fido and set the record straight.
It was then that I realised that Andy was playing a very strange game indeed. He had never once mentioned to me this need for recognition. He knew of the A to Z long before I did. He never even hinted at this plaintive contact with Fido. It was a secret contact that did him no credit. So that was the end of any trust. I did not quarrel with Andy, I simply felt sorry for someone who obviously needed kudos so badly that he was prepared to act in an underhand fashion in order to establish a false reputation. I would have thought that his job with the BBC gave him enough prestige to please his ego. But I was wrong.
And now that a report of a talk given by Andy has been dragged in to the discussion, it is time to issue a Public Health Warning. This report, in the August 'Ripperologist', should not be believed by anyone who wishes to keep his, or her, credibility intact. It is a piece that uses an amazingly muddled chronology and features a number of invented happenings. And in mentioning O'Donnell's manuscript, it demeans Richard's vital contribution by repeating the deceptive claim that "Richard Whittington-Egan mentions seeing the said document in 1973." Just that? Just 'seeing'? Now Stewart Evans has already refuted this claim in detail, and no excuses are possible, since Andy actually OWNS a copy of Richard's book! In that book Richard PUBLISHED enough of Cremer's memoirs to allow anyone to draw meaningful conclusions from them. My sole aim in planning to contact Peter O'Donnell was to secure the copyright in her memoirs, so that I could quote at length without any comebacks. I already knew that Bernard O'Donnell's own contribution was of no value. No fault of his though; he was just far too early in the field.
I repeat, and for the last time, I did NOT ask Andy to approach Peter O'Donnell. He did not even know that Bernard had a son until I asked him to look up the current phone number for Peter's publishers. He failed to do this, instead he then made contact, IN MY NAME, without my permission. Perhaps he was just overexcited? Who knows? But to later misrepresent both Richard and myself, in order to create the myth of a great independent scoop on his part, is pretty loathsome. In my 'Bloody Truth' I wrote this: "My eternal thanks to Richard Whittington-Egan, who insisted that I write this book- and who wouldn't take no for an answer." Yes, without Richard's contribution I would have ended my Ripper investigation in 1981, with the Robert Lees affair; there would have been no new material on D'Onston; no books on the man, and the ungrateful Andy Aliffe would never have been known in Ripperland.
Finally, though I make allowances for Fido's false memories, I have to note that such false memories are ALWAYS to his benefit. They ALWAYS support a view he is pushing forward. I wonder why? |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 10 October 2002 - 05:38 am | | "Harris", if I may adopt his form of naming people, plays his usual game of asserting that anything he has once said is the final TRUTH and people who continue to challenge it are at best unable to see straight, or perhaps, in an accusation "Harris" is very fond of making, uttering A LIE!
Of course he questioned Stephen Willment's discovery as soon as it became known, and pouncing on the word "bedfast" put forward his own entirely speculative and imaginary postulations about the neurasthenic Stevenson prowling around the hospital chatting up doctors and making a favourable impression. Without some such fanciful notion the entire Stevenson case he postulated in "The Bloody Truth" - never remotely persuasive in any case - falls to the ground. And for reasons nobody can understand, despite his obvious intelligence, "Harris" clings to it.
Now it appears that he was aware of Donston's hospitalization before Stephen Willment's independent discovery ensured that it became public knowledge. (Naturally the work of anyone else has to be denigrated, so Stephen's work becomes "blunders".)
And so, "Harris" now tells us, he thought the hospital a possible useful bolt hole, only keeping silent about his discovery because he was filing away the information for future use.
Maybe. Maybe failing to notice that a hospitalized Stevenson was a priori extremely damaging to his published theory. Maybe holding back for perfectly good reasons until Stephen Willment forced him to make some premature observations. Certainly quite wrong in imagining that his instant ingenious defence of the Stevenson theory carried any conviction with me, and can properly be described as his having made known to me that Stephen Willment's "blunders" put his discovery out of court.
As for Andy Aliffe and Richard Whittington-Egan, why did the insistent scholar who demands proper verification of all reports immediately lose all trust in Andy on hearing of his mildly plaintive complaint, without contacting him immediately to find out exactly what he had said? Why does he imagine that we could or should take his word automatically in preference to that of other people? (I have now ceased to do so, realizing that his persuasive-seeming citation of letters and dates is persistently used to mislead). Why does the spotless purveyor of truth mention Richard Whittington-Egan's commendation of his work on exposing hoaxes and insistence that he publish his book on them, but withhold a little information so that the unwary might imagine (as he falsely stated to Martin Howells in 1987) that Richard endorsed the silly Stevenson theory? Could Richard's actual reservations be filed away for future use? Richard wrote to me in 1986 that he looked forward to "a good book from Melvin Harris" (with some other much less promising material from other people for the centenary), but definitely relegated it to second place with the words, "but yours is first". And when I had read "The Bloody Truth" and telephoned Richard, asking whether someone as intelligent as Melvin could possibly believe this tosh, Richard said that it ws astonishing, but he did. The unwary should not be misled into imagining that Richard's encouragement to "Harris" to publish prior to the discovery of the important new Donston material, and his belief that over all "The Bloody Truth" was a good book, ever meant that he thought the Stevenson theory was part of its goodness.
(By contrast, he wrote of the Cohen theory, "I like it. I WANT to believe it. But I can't". I capitalize his word because in this format I can't underline as he did.) My thanks to those who drew my attention to the fact that, way after the original discussion, "Harris" has emerged to take up his familiar position "at the ear of Eve", so that I have momentarily withdrawn my attention from work to respond.
With all good wishes, Martin F |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 10 October 2002 - 08:04 am | | | Dear Mr.Fido.....in an unrelated matter,how are you feeling? Good to see you back. Howard |
|
|
|
|
