Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

 Search:



** 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 22 October 2002

Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous: Behind The Bluff: Archive through 22 October 2002
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 11 October 2002 - 05:14 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Howard,
Many thanks for the good wishes. feeling fit as a fiddle, as (except for a brief period of excess fatigue) I have done throughout the now completed treatment. Only, for safety's sake, I do, at present, always need to know where the nearest public convenience is... My sister-in-law remarked at one point that my symptoms show that I'm obviously pregnant....
And with relation to my querulous posting above, will all irritated pedants please accept my apologies for mislabelling as neurasthenic Stevenson's notorious neurosthenic condition.
All the best,
MArtin F

Author: stephen miller
Friday, 11 October 2002 - 11:00 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Martin Pregnant eh can I be your agent?
best wishes
steve

Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 11 October 2002 - 11:25 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Martin,

Apologies accepted - I did wince at neurasthenic, but now I'm wincing at the thought of poor dear prima gravida Fido throwing up every morning and getting bigger by the day....

Any ideas yet for names? If it's twins, how about Keith and Paul, or even Ivor and Mel? :)

Love,

Irritated Pedant

Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Friday, 11 October 2002 - 03:28 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hello Martin,

Its not just women that are entitled to have bladder complaints. Join the club! The only difference is that us men don't have to join a 'bleeding' great queue like you see outside the 'Ladies' to 'relieve'ourselves.
I suppose thats a relief in itself.
Have you tried Saw Palmetto capsules?
They have done me more good than anything else.
Keep well.

Andy P.

Author: judyjanes
Friday, 11 October 2002 - 04:17 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
I recently posted a message that I'm sure will soon be listed, Yes I'm new to the message board but I'm amazed at the stone throwing that seems to be going on. I just today rec'd the Jack the Ripper A - Z which I ordered through a book store who had to bring it in from the UK. I can't wait to start reading it. The writers Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Donald Rumbalow, Colin Wilson and so on are all well known Jack writers and certainly should be credited with the enjoyment they have tried to give us. We certainly bought their books, at least I did. I would like to point out a theory from the Mark Daniels book based on the TV series. Godley was very involved with the Jack murders and obviously true to his oath not to reveal same, but four endings were presented.One was suppposely true, yet no one has considered Spratling the cop. Who better to hide the truth? He hated prostitutes etc,(if true) yet his name has never come up before in any of the books I've read. The policeman theory should be considered I think. I refuse to believe that his idenity was unknown, royal? records can be altered to suit the dates,, no problem. I'm looking forward to hearing opinions regarding same. Ivor, Please Chill!! judy

Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 11 October 2002 - 05:22 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
FIDO'S FOLLIES

Alas. Fido's mind is in a far worse state than I imagined! My TRUE FACE OF JACK THE RIPPER, was in draft form in 1991; in its final form it was typed in 1992 and the Maybrick appendix was added prior to December 1993, when the WP disks were with the printers. Thus D'Onston's hospital records were FIRST INCLUDED and dealt with, in my book, that was issued in early 1994. But the Stephen Willment material on D'Onston's hospital stay was not published until AFTER my book appeared, that is why the 1994 A-Z entry carries THIS FOOTNOTE: "(But see Melvin Harris: The True Face of Jack the Ripper for a rebuttal)". How then can Fido come up with these grotesque statements: "...Stephen Willment's independent discovery ensured that it became public knowledge." and "Stephen Willment forced him [Harris] to make some premature observations."?

Yes, Fido has good reason to dislike my precise use of dates and letters. He would rather lash out with vague and imprecise charges and memories, all tailored to suit his ends. He is even now misrepresenting the post he is pretending to reply to! But the records refute his nonsense. The valid dates are given above and p 484 of the 1996 edition of the A-Z proves that Willment's absurd 'bed-fast' blunder was later withdrawn. A fact Fido evades. Yet the bed-fast claim was the crux of the matter. QED.

My wife was greatly amused by his assertion that the 1994 hospital theories of an unknown gentleman had caused me to think up "an instant ingenious defence of the Stevenson (sic) theory." She well remembers our 1990 'reconstruction' of the London Hospital grounds on our Irish estate. And, by doubling back, our imaginary Whitechapel street layout on the traffic-free roads. She held the stopwatch, while I mounted a fence and police whistle in hand, briskly walked the distances to each nominated 'murder site.' The conclusions can be found on page 111 of my TRUE FACE.

Now if Fido really makes an effort to be fair he will acknowledge that all his waffle about Willment was time-wasting, spite-driven and irrational, and in complete conflict with the evidence placed in his hands in 1994. I refer to the letter from Andy. After the O'Donnell affair this letter was the last straw, BUT on the positive side it did tell Fido that D'Onston's hospital records were known to us in 1990. Thus there is no possible excuse for Fido's charges. They are baseless and mendacious.

As for my alleged 'speculative and imaginary postulations', my reasoning is based on an excellent knowledge of 1. the Victorian class system and the psychology of the underlings and 'toffs' of the period; 2. the layout of the London Hospital grounds; 3. the shortcomings of hospital security; 4. the fact that D'Onston's complaint did not justify a stay of 134 days. Fido though, offers an imaginary postulation which dismisses such sound knowledge as 'fanciful'. Perhaps Fido can account for the inordinately long stay by postulating that D'Onston was simply hiding out from one of Brighton's racecourse thugs?

But I am dealing with hard facts, not fancies. A toff, wearing a monocle, having military bearing, and able to talk to doctors and nurses with knowledge and confidence, was obviously someone who could establish his own easy routine in any hospital. Add to that, the fact that he was a private patient, who could claim to be quite overactive and you have a perfect cover for nocturnal wanderings. And he was an inveterate pipe-smoker, which gave him an extra reason for using the grounds. These, and many other things, makes this cold-blooded creature an authentic object of deep suspicion, especially when we find that he confessed, in print, to the killing of an African woman. He voiced no regrets whatsoever.

And the views of WT Stead can never be discounted. He knew D'Onston's state of health. He knew him to be a hospital inmate at the time of the murders. He knew about his cold-blooded nature. So he knew enough about him, both mentally and physically, and location-wise, to make a judgement. And he judged him quite capable of killing and mutilating the Whitechapel victims. So, unlike Fido, Stead never saw the hospital stay as presenting a problem and he dealt in facts. Fido, on the other hand, has dealt in fiction from the start. Page 184 of his 1987 hardback is a fictional and irresponsible piece on D'Onston which he has never had the decency to correct, despite being asked to. He is still wedded to that same state of mind.

It is untrue to state I have represented Richard as agreeing with my ideas on D'Onston. On the contrary, I have stated that he has never endorsed ANY candidate. But he did agree strongly that my search for the real D'Onston was worthwhile and called for. And he encouraged me to dig out as much new material as possible and took pleasure in any new facts unearthed. And, despite his reservations, he encouraged me to publish and be damned!

Finally, can I ask Mr Fido to use the correct spelling for D'Onston's family name; to use the correct spelling for his 'complaint' which is, neurosthenia (now corrected I see); and apologise for misusing the word fulsome? And can he please give up the habit of using the overworked term 'postulate'? And can he now try, ever so hard, to read my posts intelligently? And where is the long-awaited apology for his libellous claim that I tried to high-jack his local radio programme?

Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 12 October 2002 - 08:18 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Well, Well, well! An instant response from Melvin! I'm flattered.
And, on a quite genuine and serious note, I thank him for returning to courteous forms of address in his final paragraph, which I hope he will continue.
On the other hand, far from withdrawing the statement that he telephoned LBC trying to get them either to replace me or include him on my newly established radio programme in 1987, I have to repeat that it happened; that his defensive postings on the subject stand high on the list of things which have sadly convinced me that his misstatements cannot all be attributed to argumentative overstatement; and that if he thinks my recollections libellous he should approach his lawyers.
Perhaps he also denies my statement that he told Martin Howells in 1987 that Richard Whittington-Egan had read i/{The Bloody Truth}, adding the comment "And he thinks I'm right"? Perhaps he would also like to check through his lawyers whether that statement, too, can be independently supported or not? Since then, of course he has not made the specific claim, and I did not accuse him of doing so: only of omitting Richard's disbelief in the Donston theory while citing Richard's general approval of his work (which we all share); a form of selective quotation which, I feared, might mislead the unwary.
But all these arguments ad hominem are off the point; a region where I regret to say I am frequently led by Melvin. In fact, this entire thread is being led constantly further and further away from the real point at issue: the fact that Melvin's sudden and unprovoked attack on Andy Aliffe, emerging out of the blue after a long period, was unjustified, and appeared to be a belated attempt to withdraw the fulsome - (OED definition 1: "Characterized by abundance; possessing or affording copious supply; abundant; plentiful; full") - praise given in his original description of Andy as the "dedicated organizer... who has beavered away while all the others slept." Andy, a generous man, has never made such comparative claims for his work. But he did ultimately complain that his actual major achievement, recovering the O'Donnell material, seemed to be pushed out of sight. And when he made the claim publicly, this was for Melvin 'the last straw', and he came thundering out that a minor discovery in Hull was the only scholarly achievement to be granted to Andy, and everything or almost everything Andy claimed with relation to Donston research was either carrying out Melvin's directions or following leads which had been given him by Melvin. If one suggests that other researchers were hardly sleeping all this time - the Maybrickians were beavering away; Stewart Evans was establishing the facts about Dr Tumblety - one will no doubt meet with some other slippery evasion, unless we are invited to accept a claim that it was foolish slumber on everyone but Andy's part to disregard or dismiss the Donstonian case made in i/{The Bloody Truth}. (Vanitas, vanitatis...) So what are the facts one must now set to Andy's demerit? That Richard Whittingto-Egan saw, handled, and printed much of the ms, whose existence had already been made known in print. That Melvin, always (rightly) keen to see that primary sources have been correctly cited, decided to try and get hold of it, and asked Andy to track it down, giving him leads as to where to look. Andy did so, and passed it to Melvin, and then felt that unspecific praise as "the organizer of the Upper Baker Street irregulars" didn't supply a clear account of his actual work on the Ripper. For which he has since been viciously attacked and denigrated. All the further discussion about Stephen Willment's work and the the extraordinary timed ambulations of Mr Harris on his Irish estate are wandering away from the main point, just as irrelevant discussion of what Mr Harris measured out in Ireland and Mrs Harris timed with a stop-watch is irrelevant distraction from the main point about Donston's hospitalization: to wit, that all the guff about monocled Donston puffing his pipe in hospital corridors and impressing everyone as a good guy is sheer imagination, not fact, and imagination used to get rid of the unpleaant fact that, however incompatible Melvin thinks the length of his stay in hospital was with the rare complaint the doctors (possibly incorrectly) diagnosed, it is prima facie evidence against Donston's being the Ripper that he was hospitalized at the time of the murders. QED. (Though I love the idea of Melvin in Ireland busily scrambling over an imaginary fence while Mrs Harris watched, stop-watch in hand. Shades of Baden-Powell climbing over imaginary barbed wire defences at Mafeking every Sunday!) My thanks again to those who drew my attention to Melvin's quick response; also to all the well-wishers who hope my accouchement is comfortable. my regrets that when this long weekend with a day's holiday from teaching reaches its end on Wdnesday, I shall no longer be able to devote even the limited attention to the boards that I am now giving this one thread. All the best, Martin F

Author: Stephen Hills
Sunday, 13 October 2002 - 11:15 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Mr Martin Fido

This message has nothing to do with the debate between yourself and Mr Harris (which I do not feel qualified to comment on) except in so much as your LBC show has been mentioned. I enjoy listening to your murder after midnight stories but I am begining to recognise a number of repeated episodes. Are you able to do any new ones? If the answer is yes, might I request the story behind the imprisonment of the father of the actress Margaret Rutherford. I know nothing about this case and my only interest in it at all is its connection with Margaret Rutherford. I believe that he committed a murder, but even this is a feint memory and I am not entirely sure. Of course, even if it is true the story may be quite mundane and inappropriate for your show, but if it isn't, I think its celebrity connection will make it of interest to your listeners.

And now I must apologise for using this board for a personal request, but hope that you will forgive me.

Best wishes

Cromo

PS I do not know the details, but it is clear from previous posts that your health is not at its best. I am sorry to hear that and wish you a speedy return to full good health.

Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 13 October 2002 - 03:05 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
FIDO'S BLUFF AGAIN!

How low can you get? My legitimate rejection of Fido's false account of the Willment affair has been evaded once more and his reply has been turned into a 'poor overlooked Andy' ramble. My post primarily involved Fido's deceptive and unworthy piece of 25 August 2002-03:40. It was a piece that was in direct conflict with ALL the evidence available to Fido from both myself, my book and the 1994 letter from Andy. Therefore it was dishonest and needed to be withdrawn. But Fido still refuses to take such forthright action. His mean streak still predominates; so much for his ethics!

His prejudiced mind even prevents him from reading my words correctly! The real fence in Ireland becomes an: "imaginary fence"; D'Onston pipe smoking in the hospital GROUNDS becomes: "D'Onston puffing his pipe in hospital corridors"; that I asked Andy for a phone number and NOTHING MORE, becomes: "...asked Andy to track it down" ('it' being the manuscript). These are just a few examples. Warped thinking indeed!

This same warped thinking, plus his weighty load of hypocrisy, leads him to cling to his pathetic whine about my attempt to steal his radio slot. But he again evades the crucial point which is: how could I possibly have been involved in a programme that held absolutely no interest for me, dealing with topics that I had never researched and which I have always found repugnant?

The truth here, is that in 1987-8, unlike Fido, I was not desperate for money or yearning to be noticed. A petty local radio slot, on ANY topic, would have held no allure for me. Apart from that, no such station could have offered my fees. Neither would I have had the time to spend on such a trivial pursuit. I was fully committed for years ahead and this allowed me to take my overdue break in Ireland, which lasted for three years. Yes, my name was known around at LBC Radio at the time, but this had nothing to do with true crime, or broadcasting anything. It was known only because I was one of the three-man committee which was set up to investigate the claims of one of their radio 'psychics'. The other members were David Berglas, President of the Magic Circle, and Professor Robert Morris, of Edinburgh University.

Fido is safe in waving his little wooden sword and inviting me to consult my lawyers. He is safe, not because he lives in the US, but because it is well-known that I deplore the use of threats of libel actions in order to silence people. The people who have used such threats are, oddly enough, Robert Smith, Paul Feldman, Paul Begg and Mrs Harrison; all of them Fido's buddies!

For all that, his claims are lying and libellous and completely cuckoo. And his conduct is cowardly and underhanded, since he discussed this imaginary high-jacking with other people years before he chose to put the lies on internet. Yet he never had the guts to confront me and gain the truth.

And note: I have never told anyone, including Martin Howells, that Richard agreed with my views on D'Onston. I have said only that Richard agreed that some errors in his book misled people and that my research put the record straight. And he agreed that, as a consequence, I was right in regarding D'Onston as a serious candidate and worth further study. That is all. If people misunderstand this, then the fault is with them.

Finally, as a traditionalist (remember the 'graffito' episode) Fido should choose his words more carefully. Why use the term 'fulsome' when easier to understand words are around? And why quote the OED definition 1. when it is definition 7. 'Of language' that applies? And why use a term that has traditionally been used in this fashion: 'cloying'; 'disgustingly fawning'; 'gross or excessive flattery', etc? Modern politicians often use the term wrongly, but let us not stoop that low!

FOOTNOTE: Fido may think my Whitechapel reconstruction 'extraordinary' but it met the demands of a responsible, professional investigation. For me, that always involves caution, thoroughness and fairness. This was not filmed, but if you tune in to 'Arthur C. Clarke Mysterious Universe' series you can see another of my professional investigations in Ireland. This involved my scale drawings of Knock Church; the creation of a full-sized replica of the gable end of that church; the creation of stretched images on lantern slides, the construction of oblique-projection devices, and the hiring of the local fire brigade as rain makers. All done to investigate a two hour 'miraculous event' of the 19th century. Those are my standards.

Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 13 October 2002 - 11:10 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Stephen - (?or Cromo)
Yes, LBC repeats old Murders After Midnight with, at present, 12 new ones every year inserted at some point. As the station has just undergone a change of management, and will be changing its base in January when I normally come over and put down new scripts on tape, the next taping will be unlikely to happen for a considerable time. I can only say "Watch (or listen to) Clive's Space" to hear what is going on.
Your request for the Margaret Rutherford's father's story is noted, but joins a fairly long queue of requests, including some revivals of old topics on which LBC has lost its tapes, so I'm not promising anything except a hope that I live long enough to meet your request. (A comment that has no bearing on my recent health problems, which taxed me so little I shouldn't have known they existed had not routine medical checks noted that there was a problem so that treatment has been completed without my feeling a symptom).

And with relation to Melvin's last diatribe, I suspect that this will rapidly be seen as a weariness unto the flesh by other readers. If he chooses to assert that I am libelling him but declines to issue a writ, that is his problem. Far from bluffing, I assert quite confidently that he DID telephone LBC claiming that he should either be occupying my slot or co-presenting with me: a message relayed to me by people who quite certainly did not know his name and wanted to know who the hell he was and why he thought he could make such a demand. And he DID tell Martin Howells that Richard Whittington-Egan had said his book ws right. I don't propose to play easy games of tu quoque with him about why he didn't immediately tax Andy Aliffe with complaints he thought unjustified, or cite small details which might refresh his memory as to the two incidents. As I too have scruples against initiating libel suits, I don't accuse other people of libelling me, even when they are as abusive as Melvin has been ever since he took umbrage over the criticism of his work in A-Z. But he is free to use whatever language he wants. I have nothing further to say on the subject. Nor do I propose to waste everybody's time as he quibbles over trivial details of my reportage from memory, or hopefully maintains that the OED definition HE wants applied - (the SEVENTH, forsooth!)- must be the one I was taken to mean! His unacceptable behaviour to Andy Aliffe remains inadequately explained and evidently unregretted. His distractive effort to discuss Stephen Willment instead is not worth pursuing further than I have done, beyond noting that Melvin still talks about everything under the sun in prefrence to the manifest improbability of a hospital patient's being Jack the Ripper. But there is one interesting point arising from all this, which I hope to develop in a new thread on neurosthenia. All the best, Martin F

Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 14 October 2002 - 03:34 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
If Melvin asked Andy for a phone number and NOTHING MORE, and Andy did more than that, isn't that a good thing? I don't understand.

If Melvin asked Andy for a phone number and NOTHING MORE, and that's all Andy did, that hardly suggests he was working tirelessly while others slept - again, I don't understand.

If Melvin asked Andy for a phone number and NOTHING MORE, I don't understand why Melvin didn't just do it himself.

Or is there more to this public argument than I have so far grasped?

Confused Caz

Author: Yazoo
Monday, 14 October 2002 - 09:02 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hey Caz:

As we say in America: You go, girl!

Hope all is well with you and yours...and I'm still waiting to hear of a Caroline Morris and a book publication announcement. Anything in the works?

Yaz the Likewise Confused

Author: Jon
Monday, 14 October 2002 - 10:55 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Martin
I have the greatest respect for Melvin in his involvement in the 'Diary' fiasco. That thread, and related threads, I long ago stopped reading following the posting of Melvins findings (1998?) on the various tests he graciously detailed for us.
In my opinion, that was enough for me,.. end of story.

However, although I have Melvin's books on the matter of D'Onston as a Ripper candidate I can applaude your hint that we should get down to business in opening up a thread as you suggested. Who knows, you may lure Melvin (by proxy) into contributing a few lines. There are what I would call, "area's of uncertainty" in my own mind. I too would be interested in the author being party to a discussion of his proposal, but, likely Melvin may be too busy to entertain such cannon fodder as we.
(Cannon, as in the singular or plural):)

Best regards, Jon

Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 14 October 2002 - 12:11 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Dear Cromo,

Re: Margaret Rutherford's father

Margaret Rutherford's father was William Benn,
who suffered a mental breakdown in 1883. He had
recently married Florence Nicholson. His doctors
made the mistake of asking William's father
Julius (a pastor) to take William home with him.
on 26th February 1883, William bashed in his
father's head with an earthenware chamber pot,
killing him. It reminds one of the murder in 1843
by the painter Richard Dadd of his father (except
Dadd stabbed his father) - Dadd also ended up in
a lunatic asylum.

Dadd spent the rest of his life in an asylum, and
actually created the masterpieces of his career
while in the asylum. Not so William Benn. He
was in the asylum until 1891, when the doctors
concluded he had recovered from the mental illness. William's brother John Benn had become
a leading Liberal Party figure on the London
County Council, and petitioned our old friend
Henry Matthews, still the Home Secretary, for
the release of William. Matthews agreed. William
moved back to Balham, joining his wife. They
changed their name to Rutherford. In 1892 Margaret Rutherford was born.

I located this on a webb site http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUbeenJ.htm

It was in an article on John Williams Benn

Jeff

Author: Stephen Hills
Monday, 14 October 2002 - 04:21 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Dear Martin and Jeff

Thank you for your reply Mr Fido. I shall indeed listen out for new tales. I hope that the up-coming changes do not hold it up for too long. I shall also listen out for when Clive next invites you onto his show as a guest - either in the studio or through the wonders of modern telecommunications.

It seems Jeff Bloomfield has been kind enough to sniff out the story that I was interested in, for which I thank you Jeff. I had tried to find it myself but I had no luck. It is as well that I do not rely on such skills for a living. It would seem that we would have been deprived of the world's most wonderful Miss Marple but for John Benn having been good friends with the Home Secretary.

Best wishes

Stephen (aka Cromo)

Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 14 October 2002 - 04:21 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Much to my surprise, I find that I have retained copies of some of the correspondence to which Melvin has referred. It was in my Donston file, not my correspondence or Harris files. (Proper filing, I have always maintained, is my sure way to lose things. A simple black hole piling all the papers one owned on an armchair and rummaging was time consuming and often meant I couldn't find what I wanted when I wanted it. But things didn't go completely AWOL for ever). Anyway, I now have some of that correspondence in front of me, so board readers can decide for themselves whether Melvin conclusively proved and explained all the things he says he did.

In an undated letter written in haste when he was under heavy work pressure, Melvin wrote:

"As for Stephen Willment I sent him a lengthy letter giving him a synopsis of my book?s section on D[?Onston] and the London Hospital. This was long before the A to Z was revised, so he had no excuse for allowing the ?bedfast? nonsense to reach print.
"I was puzzled by your remarks about Andy, but Ripperologists are such strange creatures and deal too often in rumour that to prevent any misunderstandings, here are the facts: Andy first contacted me after my ?Bloody truth? came out. He was intrigued by D?Onston and wanted to know if I had discovered any fresh biographical details. I promised to keep him up-to-date on a confidential basis, and I did. He was, in fact, the first to be told of my findings in Hull, and of my discovery of D?Onston?s occupation, together with his service records at Kew. In truth he became the first to know of any ne research on my part. When I left England there were a number of items that I could not chase up. Bernard Sims of the London Hospital had promised to send on the D?Onston entries from their registers, but he never did. (he went to Japan instead!) At Kew some of D?Onston?s service records could not be traced when I asked for them. And I had not had time to locate the Garibaldi Fund papers or D?Onston?s death and marriage papers. It was only after a year or more that I took Andy up on his offer to hunt out the pieces I needed. I am ever reluctant to ask busy people to put themselves out for me, but in this case my isolation in Ireland made things very difficult. As it was Andy was delighted to help, when he had time, and I was delighted to trust some one who was so enthusiastic. His efforts meant that I got the hospital records at last; those ?missing? Kew records were discovered; the Garibaldi papers were found and so were other important certificates and cuttings. As you?ll recall my book actually records the exciting find of the two newspaper reports of the wounding. But there is no question of pinching someone else?s work, which your letter seems to imply, since Andy willingly acted in my place at a time when I was pinned down. But there were a number of reasons why the work had to be kept on a confidential basis (and still has to be). But please note that his valuable help is fully acknowledged by the fact that I dedicated my book to him."

Okay. Those familiar with Melvin?s claims about his letters will see that Stephen Willment received a letter from him which, in Melvin?s eyes, meant that hereafter Stephen should have accepted the Melvin view of things and corrected anyone who accepted different information from Stephen. This at a time when my own correspondence to Melvin was gently pointing out the impossibility of accepting a lot of fanciful speculation built on the diagnosis which no scholar would ever have embarked upon without the a priori wish to justify Stephenson as a continuing suspect.

And as for Andy ? well, the reference to the exciting discoveries in the text of "The True Face" simply says:

"Spurred by this, new searched were made in the newspapers, but their columns held no records. The area of search was then broadened until finally, my colleague Andy Aliffe, focused his weary eyes on a gem of a report. Weary days spent peering at microfilm had paid off."

Who would know from that about Andy?s having undertaken the work that brought in the vital hospital records, the Kew and Garibaldi papers, etc? And the dedication (recently declared to mean nothing more than that Andy managed to stay awake while other people suffer from exhaustion in the Colindale microfilm reader booths) was, it seems, in fact meant to be ?full? acknowledgement for all he had done. So that when Andy actually wanted it to be known that, following Melvin?s requests and information, he acquired the O?Donnell ms, Melvin could unilaterally decide that this wasn?t something he wished to thank him for and he must be satisfied with unspecific stuff about the Upper Baker Street Irregulars and beavering while others slept which can, when Melvin so chooses, be reduced to meaning that Andy apparently never did anything but transcribe material from Colindale microfilms.

Anyway, there is, I hope, some useful source material on the serious Ripper researchers questions raised in this thread.

All the best,

Martin

Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 14 October 2002 - 04:41 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Dear Stephen,

Glad to be of service about Margaret Rutherford's
father's tragedy. I had seen a reference to it in
a biography of the actress over a dozen years ago,
but the chance encounter of it recently on that
web site made me print out the biography of her
uncle, John Benn. John Benn, by the way, ended
up a member of Parliament for a number of years.

What I find most interesting about the story is
the relative ease in which upper crust or relatively important people were able to go into
and out of asylums in late Victorian England.
William Benn did have a certification of sorts
by the treating mentalists (in those pre-Freud and
Jung and Adler days one would hesitate to call
them psychiatrists)that he was cured, but he came
from a well-to-do family, and his brother was
an associate on the London County Council when it
was being run by a fellow Liberal, Lord Roseberry
- the future Prime Minister. Who says position
and class don't count. Was Aaron Kosminski ever
similarly treated, or Michael Osrog, when they
were in asylums? Probably not. What an interesting light does this shine on the issues
of private asylums (i.e. James Kenneth Stephen,
his dad Justice Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, Sir
William Gull, and the mysterious doctor in the
1895 story connected to Robert Lees), not to mention private patients in hospitals.

Which brings us back to D'Onston....

Jeff

Author: Jon
Monday, 14 October 2002 - 05:04 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Jeff
The point you make about private asylums may be well heeded by those who thought John Sanders (the 3rd medical student) was effectively removed from the suspect list by being 'apparently' incarcerated privately in West Malling during the time of the Whitechapel murders.

I do not think it effectively removed him from the list simply, or especially, because he was detained privately.
Though why he was on the suspect list at all remains a mystery.

Regards, Jon

Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 14 October 2002 - 05:33 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Jon and Jeff - Didn't Sanders disappear in effect because Abberline went to his mother's address off Edgware Road and found the house shut up and nobody knowing where the occupants had gone? I write from memory...
All the best,
Martin F

Author: Jon
Monday, 14 October 2002 - 09:15 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Martin
The latest info available, which unfortunately is not recent, and to which I think you refer, is that when Abberline investigated as to the whereabouts of the tenents of 20 Abercorn Place (not Aberdeen) he found that the lady in occupation was a Laura J Sanders (or Saunders), who according to Jon Ogan had lived there until 1894. However at the time of the search for her son she is believed to have told police that her son had gone abroad about 2 yrs previously.

After contacting Jon Ogan I was able to learn that a medical certificate was issued for John Sanders dated Feb 8th, 1887. And it might suggest a begining of his mental illness or at least support the suggestion that the "gone abroad" statement by his mother was a euphemizm for the period, rather than admit he was detained in an asylum. Phil Sugden, you may recall, learned that the annual registers for patients in West Malling contained the name John Sanders dated Feb 1888 and Feb 1889.
It has been assumed he was under continual detainment throughout the intervening months. This may be true for patients so detained by the authorities but may not be true for patients admitted privately.
Hence my thoughts on potential home visits or day-release or some such arrangement that may have allowed such a private patient to come and go at his mothers whim in the intervening months.

Best regards, Jon

Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 14 October 2002 - 10:18 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Dear Jon and Martin,

I have to admit that until you mentioned Mr.Sanders I had never heard of him before.
I went through my books, and this is what
Philip Sugden wrote of him on page 155 of his
The Complete History of Jack the Ripper (New York:
Carroll & Graf, 1994):

"[Oswald] Puckridge was by no means the only
medical man investigated by the police after Dark
Annie's murder. We know that Abberline and his team tried to trace three insane medical students
who had attended London Hospital. Two were found,
interviewed, and eliminated from the inquiry. The
third, the only one actually named in police records, was John Sanders of 20 Abercorn Place,
Maida Vale. When a detective called at his home
neighbours told him that the family had gone
abroad but recent research has proved that Sanders
was, in fact, then being held in an asylum in
England. The son of an Indian Army surgeon, he
entered London Hospital Medical College in 1879 and functioned as an out-patient dresser in 1880-1. Afterwards he became insane. By 1887 he was
subject to attacks of violence, made unprovoked
assaults on his friends and tyrannized over his
household. The rest of his life was spent in various asylums. During the period of the murders he was confined in West Malling Place,
a private asylum in Kent, and he died, aged thirty
-nine, in the Heavitree Asylum, Exeter, in 1901.
[18]"

On pages 493-4 is footnote 18:

"18. Report of Inspector Abberline, 14 September
1888, MEPO 3/40, f. 17; report of Chief
Inspector Swanson, 19 October 1888, HO
144/221/A49301C/8a; student registers,
London Hospital Medical College, 22 April
1879, RLHAM, MC/S/1/6; report of Inspector
Abberline, 1 November 1888, MEPO 3/140, f.
206; admissions register, provincial
licensed houses, 1880-1900, PRO, MH 94/11;
Begg, Jack the Ripper, pp. 66-9, 188-9;
Begg, Fido & Skinner, Jack the Ripper
A to Z, pp. 244-5; Joe Ogan, 'The Third
Man', Ripperana, forthcoming."

On page 163, Sugden does analyze the existing
police suspects, including Sanders:

" Insanity and medical knowledge appear to
have been the most important [characteristics].
Notwithstanding Coroner Baxter's hypothesis of
an economic motive the police wee very interested
in lunatics. Three suspects (Puckridge, Sanders,
[Jacob] Isenschmid)out of nine had seen the inside
of an asylum and at least another three ([William
Henry] Piggott, [Charles] Ludwig, and [?] Morford)
were allegedly of unsound mind. Detectives also
seem to have taken Dr. Phillips' testimony to
heart because not less than five suspects (Ludwig,
Puckridge, Sanders, Morford and Isenschmid) had
some pretensions to anatomical knowledge. The
significance of these factors in determining the
direction of police inquiries is further reflected
in the searches made by Abberline and Smith for the as yet unidentified insane medical students.
Inevitably, the interest in medically qualified
people led to men of middle-class origin being
suspected and Puckridge, Sanders and Morford might
be so described. Only three suspects (Ludwig,[?]
Mary, and Isenschmid) were of Continental origin.
Given the fact that Mrs. Long had incriminated a
foreigner this may seem a little surprising but the police remained uncertain about the value of her evidence because it could not be reconciled with Dr. Phillips' estimate of the time of Annie
Chapman's death."

All this is new information to me, so I can't
really comment on it. Piggott seems to be a
ship's cook who was briefly suspected (Sugden
deals with him on page 147-48, and in footnote
9 on page 493. Although an alcoholic by 1888,
he had once been a prosperous publican, whose
father was an insurance agent from Gravesend.
He died (like Sanders) in 1901. It would be
interesting to find out, although his last name
is not that uncommon, if he was related to the
notorious newspaper man and forger Richard Piggott, who was soon to be destroyed by Sir
Charles Russell in the Parnell Inquiry.

But this gets us away from Mr.John Sanders. It
is obvious that not enough information is available yet to decide how free Sanders was at
the West Malling Placea asylum. Given the details
that Sugden mentions about Sanders tyrannizing
over his household staff, and attacking friends,
it would sound like somebody arranged for his
incarceration into the asylum (that he did not do
it voluntarily). If so, his movements would have
been severely curtailed.

That is the best I can say on this matter at this
time.

Oh, Martin I read on one of the other threads
you just had some serious surgery. As I had a
triple bypass earlier this year, you have my
sympathies, and hopes for a speedy recuperation.


Best wishes,

Jeff

Author: Jon
Monday, 14 October 2002 - 11:07 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Jeff
Yes, unless a crime was committed then is it not likely that he was committed at the behest of his mother?. I'm not sure we know of any other living relatives.
After tyrannizing his household(?) he appears to have been privately committed.
One minor wrinkle is that apparently the West Malling private asylum was not noted to cater to violent mental types.
We simply do not know enough, another loose end.

Regards, Jon

Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 15 October 2002 - 07:51 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Jeff!
Piggott, Ludwig and Issenschmidt are three very well-known early suspects who were all cleared for the decisive reason that further Ripper murders occurred after they had been arrested or placed in asylums. They are simply and clearly dealt with in Don Rumbelow's book - still, after all these years, in my view the best introduction to the case.

I didn't actually undergo surgery: just some beam radiation and the implantation of radioactive seeds. The only really uncomfortable bit (apart from some probing investigations which, as Paul Begg suggested, quite literally "hurt like b*ggery") was half a day wearing a catheter. (Ugh!) The most irritating side-effect is that now and for a few months hence it seems that an intimate part that I am very much accustomed to think of as my own feels as if it belongs to someone else and is the wrong size.

All the best,
Martin F

Author: Monty
Tuesday, 15 October 2002 - 10:17 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Martin,

Get your hands off me !! No wonder it feels as if it belongs to someone else....

...seriously, from someone who has gone through his own problems with such things, God speed you recovery.

Monty

Author: Robert Smith
Tuesday, 15 October 2002 - 11:55 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Correction Required

Mr Harris, what is your evidence for claiming here on 13th October, that I have threatened you (or, indeed, any other person) with a libel action?

If, on reflection, you agree that you have made an error, please have the decency to acknowledge it at once.

Robert Smith

Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 15 October 2002 - 05:05 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
FIDO'S AMNESIA

I have nailed Fido as an evader and here he is, proving my point once more. He gave a false account of the Willment affair; was roundly trounced by the true facts of the case, but still lacks the courage to apologise for deceiving readers of this board.

And he still repeats the lie that I telephoned LBC in an attempt to steal some petty programmes, in which I had no possible interest. Such conceit! But he still fails to produce one individual who will swear that he spoke to ME, beyond doubt. And note that he evades the essential questions I put to him. Note also that he has yet to provide the starting date for these programmes. Further note that I had never EVEN HEARD of these programmes until he wrote about them, years after 1988. And note this: if these programmes went out AFTER midnight I would never even have been awake to listen to them. For the period in question we were fast asleep by 10.30 pm. in order to be up by 6.0 am.

His dogmatism is further proof of his sieve-like memory for he has forgotten his post of Nov 6th 2000-08:45 pm. In it he was not so certain and accepted that there may have been a misunderstanding at LBC in that a query from my publisher's publicity people could have been wrongly attributed to me. Since then, though, a former BBC producer has suggested the following, and more probable, explanation.

Before I gave up radio work in 1980, I had a BBC series named "Round Midnight Mysteries", this was a slot inserted into the popular "Round Midnight" programme. My pieces were pre-recorded in the morning, so I never even heard them, but they brought in a great deal of correspondence from night-owls. They did not deal with true crime, but were an extension of the type of material used in my "Strange to Relate" radio series, and they were repeated after I left the BBC. Since I know that many unknown listeners used to phone, or write in, to ask for more programmes from me (from music to mysteries) it is possible that one such night-owl fan could have known of both Fido's 'Murders After Midnight' series and my 'Round Midnight Mysteries' series.

I see that Fido still nurses the illusion that my attitude towards him is because I took "umbrage over the criticism of his work in A-Z." Nothing of the sort. It is the other way around. The Three knew that I regarded their Diary research as lamentable and superficial. They also knew that I found some of the A-Z standards deplorable. So much so, that on 22 March 1996 I wrote this to Fido: "Can I now have the record set straight by you? I want the misreadings and the misrepresentations that I wrote to you about long ago, replaced by an honest text; a text that clearly acknowledges the errors of the two earlier editions. You did have all the details in letter form but, to prevent the Black Hole being invoked, you can find them on pp130-132 of my 'True Face'. And please note my remarks on the Eddowes report. They are pertinent, logical and accurate...Your book is supposed to be an '...unbiased...researcher's companion and reference book...' As far as my work is concerned, that claim is false, but now's the chance to rectify things."

In that same letter I wrote this: "I would like an entry under WILLMENT re-worded. It is not an honest piece of comment. Willment wrote to me on 30 September 1992 and I replied to him at length. So two years before your revision appeared he knew that neurosthenia did not in any way justify the term 'bedfast'...Thus the claim: 'Established that RDS was a bedfast patient in London Hospital...' is untrue, and does him no credit." The A-Z entry was then CHANGED, showing that the Three accepted my true position.

That brings us straight to Fido's piece on 14 Oct 2002-12:34 am. This poses as a study of neurosthenia. In his text he speaks of an "...undocumented statement in 'The True Face'. But the statement in question is self-explanatory, since there is only ONE register for Physicians' male patients at the London Hospital. And the date of D'Onston's entry in that one register is given by me as 26th July 1888. The entry on that date shows his case as 'Neurosthenia' and there is no ambiguity about the entry. And in 1888 neurosthenia was fully recognised as a condition that needed nothing much more than a rest-cure. But it was not a condition in which the patient lay around in an anxious, listless, exhausted, and weak state. That condition was designated as neurasthenia and was usually associated with pale, languid, females. As a complaint it was met with home treatment, not hospitalisation. But in the case of neurosthenia the patient was allowed to stay active, but advised to avoid stress. The sole medication involved was an optional calming dose of a standard mixture of chloral and bromide.

You will find none of this on the Internet. To seek out the condition involves hard slog in medical libraries. This I undertook and I have provided both Chris George and the London Hospital museum curator with a list of Victorian publications which deal with this condition. There are more to be found, when I have the time.

Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 15 October 2002 - 07:39 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
"Harris" knows perfectly well that I refuse to put any friends or colleagues in the position of undergoing the sort of telephonic badgering and bullyragging which is his response to being told of people who confirm stories detrimental to him.
All the autobiography he cares to relate doesn't alter the fact that in late 1987 or early 1988 I was posed the question "Who is this Melvin Harris who is ringing us up and saying he ought to be doing the programme and not you?"

As for all the other farrago, readers will note that the one thing Melvin does NOT do is explain th contradictions between his letter to me of c.1994 and his subsequent account of his relations with Andy Aliffe. I can leave his own words to testify to his accuracy and reliability in recalling the past.

Martin F

Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 15 October 2002 - 09:51 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Dear Martin,

Jon e-mailed material on Sanders, so I have a
better grasp on that incident of the investigation. He's right that it remains another
loose end, with insufficient information to make
any kind of judgment on.

I might add that I too had the unpleasant experience of a Foley catheter in my by-pass
operation, though I never had the after effect
you described. You have my sympathy.

I'd still would like to know if Piggott the
temporary suspect had some connection to Piggott
the forger. It might be worthwhile to look into
this...just out of curiosity.

Best wishes to all,

Jeff

Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 16 October 2002 - 07:59 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Jeff,
I doubt very much whether there is any link between the two Piggotts: the wandering lunatic of London and the errant go-between of Dublin seem prima facie very different types of men and likely to come from different families.
Incidentally, taking a leaf from Ivor's book and drawing attention to evidence I have recently come across that seems to challenge my own theorizing, it is interesting that long after the event Robert Anderson was maintainng that Piggot did not forge the Parnell letter. This means he was setting aside the drift of the cross-examination that led to Piggott's breakdown, flight and suicide, and the suicide itself. So either he had extraordinary inside information, or he based an unusual theory on some inside knowledge, or, as my critics claim he often did, he was at least in this instance displaying an obstinate capacity to cling to an exploded theory which makes him an unreliable witness. I am not, of course, saying this was the case or that I think it justifies assessing Anderson's Ripper claims unfavourably. But I am saying that until further research has been done it cannot be ruled out, and if the research proves that Anderson was being idiosyncratic and absurd, his Ripper testimony's value is concomitantly diminished.

And Dear Everyone,
On the unhappier subject of "Harris's" last accusations, I'd better add a couple of points, as I am unlikely to look at the boards again for some months after mid-morning today. His claims that the A-Z authors started an offensive war with him because he regarded our Maybrick Diary work as lamentable and superficial can only be dismissed as (in his word) "moonshine". We never did triumvirate work or had a unanimous opinion, and as he well knows, with the exception of some details and his constantly changing open or hinted accusations against other people, I was in broad agreement with him on the subject. I did not, of course, poceed to research it deeply, because I don't waste my time digging into theories I regard as untenable on the evidence we have at present (like the Donston Stephenson theory). The fact that we changed the Willment entry and not the Stephenson entry points to the fact that we are both responsible and human: we make corrections where we see an immediate necessity. We may miss some through forgetfulness or (in the case of some of "Harris"s" offerings)failure to sort out the real matter from the irrelevant insults and swagger. Don Rumbelow confessed to a similar inability to remember all the needful changes to every new edition when, in 1988, Colin Wilson said in self-defence at a conference that he continued to base arguments on the pile of coins and rings by Annie Chapman because it was still in Don's latest edition. It certainly did nothing but raise Don in everyone's esteem that he immediately admitted to the oversight. My own view is that those of us who admit to oversights and mistakes are less misleading to the public than the one Ripper authority who never admits to an error or a change of mind, even when they have been dragged into the daylight while he kicks and screams. And his preference for silence when in difficulty becomes clear when one looks at the difference between his reactions to the LBC, Howells, and Aliffe parts of my previous posting. In the case of Howells, obviously Martin is a witness to what was said to him: moreover he is somewhere in New Zealand, so cannot be harried into any sort of admission that he might not have remembered the incident accurately. So instead of reiterating his claim that he never said Richard W-E supported his conclusions, "Harris" falls silent, (possibly because he now half-remembers the occasion, or because he doesn't wish to have his faulty memory contradicted). In the case of Andy Aliffe - the real cause of this board - he falls completely silent when confronted with his own words. I recommend that these examples be born in mind when one reads "Harris" flailing about with ad hominem accusations and self-defences that really are not at the centre of the dispute. I suggest that it represents vanity of the most extraordinary kind to imagine that I think him so important that I would invent a false accusation against him - an accusation that has no bearing on his Ripper work or scholarly abilities, and that would never have been made public at all had not his own method of disputation led me unhappily into exchanges of ad hominem personalities. But for the present and the purposes of this board, we all look forward to the ingenuity with which he reconciles his various statements about Andy, and makes them compatible with his implicit claims to a character of consistency, unswerving truthfulness, freedom from malice or ingratitude, and such utter scholarly reliability that anything he has written, whether documented or not, must be taken as a conclusive demonstration of the real case. All the best, Martin F

Author: Eduardo Zinna
Wednesday, 16 October 2002 - 09:27 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
MESSAGE FOR MR FIDO

Dear Martin,

Would you be so kind as to email me at eduardo_zinna@yahoo.co.uk? I have a question that I believe you can clarify for me and which I would rather not ask through the boards. It is not, by the way, related to the present thread. Nor is it, rest assured, related to the ailments that plague people of our vintage.

With best wishes,
Eduardo

Author: Melvin Harris
Wednesday, 16 October 2002 - 05:53 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
THE WAY FORWARD

Dear Robert Smith, have you really forgotten that when I queried one aspect of the dispute between you and Mike Barrett, you told me that my words "are actionable"? Now, when that came from a hard-headed businessman, who had already spent many thousands in one court action, I was entitled to regard these words as an implicit threat. Understand? And it would pay you to think back. Are there any other individuals out there who can report such similar confrontations? Think hard before you jump!

Instead of wasting my time, why not devote your energies to setting the record straight? You have always had a moral obligation to reveal every report on the Diary in full. You have always had the time and the money to do this. Why not redeem yourself by doing this now? At the same time you can withdraw all the nonsense you uttered about the Maybrick Will and the skills needed to forge the Diary text. Try it. You may feel emancipated and purged of guilt, afterwards! And you can then collect the Sphere book.

Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 12:27 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
In regards to Anderson, Piggott, & etc.

I've always been a bit surprised that Sir Robert spoke so warmly about Le Caron [Beach]. I haven't read Cole's biography of Le Caron yet --so I'll keep an open mind--but my impression from reading contemporary American reports is that Le Caron was a shady and dishonest character, to say the least. Perhaps the British view and the American view of Le Caron are quite different. Naturally, the American press was much more sympathetic to the Irish cause, but, regardless, over here Le Caron was exposed as a liar, a swindler, and, among other things, even a one-time quack and a grave-robber. And yet Anderson specifically praises Le Caron's honesty(?)

Le Caron claimed he rose to the ranks of a major during the American Civil War. His critics hotly disputed this, saying that he was a mere bugler that once was given command of a small group of soldiers.

Anyway...it rather surprises me that Anderson gave him such high praise. Perhaps it's an indication that Anderson's ideologies made him rather myopic??

Author: Robert Smith
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 12:30 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
The Way Backward

Melvin Harris, what a very silly response. You wrongly claimed, on 13th October 2002, that I had used “threats of libel action in order to silence people”. In the same post you said that Martin Fido’s “claims are lying and libellous”. If calling Martin Fido’s words “libellous” is not a threat of libel action, then nor is my saying your words are “actionable”. Do you follow?

As for Mike’s copy of the Sphere book, which you are withholding, I think we all get the point now, that you have no intention of releasing it to an independent production expert for examination. Well, there’s a surprise.

Robert Smith

Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 18 October 2002 - 09:12 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
THE WAY WE WERE

I guess it's a good example of how misunderstandings can arise from lack of communication. Had Melvin asked Robert at the time if the description of his words as 'actionable' was meant as a threat, the rewards would have been two-fold: not only would he have avoided making a wrong assumption about another person's thought processes; he could also have rested easy all this time, safe in the knowledge that no action was going to be taken over his words.

I do hope you are wrong, though, Robert, about Melvin's intentions regarding the Sphere book. What possible reasons could he have for not wanting it to be examined independently? If it was indeed used in the diary's creation, it is the one piece of physical evidence that could be used to convince you and Shirley and Keith among others that Melvin was right all along about the document being forged in the late 1980s - and a pretty effective way of putting the lid on discussions that waste his time.

Love,

Caz

Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 11:27 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
DOWNHILL AGAIN!

Once again Fido adopts the cheap tactic of ignoring all calls for precision and falls back on vague mutterings and distractions. He is defeated the moment he tries to bring to screen documented proof. In May 2000 he accused me of failing to name the three source books used in faking the Diary, yet I had named the books and matched them up, detail by detail, in 1997 in my 40 page analysis of Feldman's book!

Again, on April 22 2001-11:03am, he complained that I had not approached Bruce Paley with my queries about his sources, and he held himself up as the great example of correct conduct by saying: "Melvin will no doubt remember that when I was told an extremely discreditable story about him, I immediately approached him about it by telephone, and have since never published it." Now that claim was an invention. The event he alluded to is the case of "The American lady fan who tried to seduce Harris". Well, we now know who the lady was, and we know when she visited London. Prior to that date she wrote describing my book as "A delight... I think it is one of the best books I have read on the subject...is it possible to meet with you...? it would certainly be the high point of my trip." But she never met me; her visit came AFTER I had taken up residence in Ireland; and there was no immediate approach to me by telephone. I only learned of Fido's meeting with her SIX YEARS AFTER that event. How wild can you get?

He now asserts that I indulge in "telephonic badgering and bullyragging...of people who confirm stories detrimental to [Harris]". This is another incorrect charge and I invite him to name ANY critic who has been telephonically badgered by me. They do not exist, but to save time let me record that I have never once spoken to Mrs Harrison on the phone; My last call to Begg was at Christmas 1992; Melvyn Fairclough phoned ME twice in 1995; Paul Feldman last phoned ME in Jan 1995; Robert Smith last phoned ME in 1994; and I have never even spoken once to Keith Skinner. So where are these badgered critics? Where are their complaints?

And why did Fido wait for years before publishing his radio high-jacking smear? And why does he evade giving the exact date of the start of his programmes? Now he writes vaguely of 1987-88, but in an earlier post he stated that they did not start until early in 1988. Exact dates are ultra-important in this case of paranoid imaginings and badly fabricated charges.

POSTSCRIPT

I do not get every post in sequence, thus I have only recently seen his post of 15 Oct 07:39pm.

Far from being reduced to silence, I am delighted to see the words on screen! Readers will notice that I credit Andy with the things he did on my behalf. They will also notice that he was NOT credited with the discovery of O'Donnell's son and father Bernard's manuscript. The facts in that case have been put on screen.

I gave his help the highest tribute of all: A DEDICATION. All my other books were dedicated to my wife alone. That speaks for itself. I did not indicate in my text that Andy collected this or that for me, for the same reasons that I have never asked the A-Z authors to indicate just where I supplied material for their book. When I help other authors I give my services freely without yearning for applause or accolades. I expect the same of others.

Author: David Radka
Monday, 21 October 2002 - 11:39 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Disgrace piled upon disgrace, endlessly. No wonder Ripperology is maligned as a house full of cranks. The British people no longer have any right to criticize the Americans as being somewhat less than completely civilized, after the above.

David

Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Tuesday, 22 October 2002 - 07:01 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Whatho David,

Not all British people are like this. Some bother to listen to the opinions of others and do not bother to hold grudges over things which happened some 15 years ago and endlessly accuse others of liable.

Cheers, Mark

Author: Stephen Hills
Tuesday, 22 October 2002 - 07:06 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
David

Where would we British be if we could not malign our American cousins. You would take all the fun out of living if you stopped us doing that. Thankfully for us though the Americans elected George Bush for President. Only fair since we elected Mrs Thatcher to show what a sense of humour the Brits have.

Regards

Cromo

Author: Howard Brown
Tuesday, 22 October 2002 - 08:47 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Yeah Dave........That repartee above is ALMOST as bad as that post comparing Ira Einhorn to Chris George...remember that ?...THAT poster must be British too,huh ?...or calling Norder and Wroe,Tweedledee and Tweedledum....another Brit at work,huh?.Glad we are above all that..........

Author: Jesse Flowers
Tuesday, 22 October 2002 - 09:38 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
RJ-
Regarding the Civil War record of Thomas Miller Beach, aka Henri Le Caron...

Le Caron is listed as a bugler with Company A of the 15th Pennsylvania Volunteer Cavalry. He was possibly one of those who refused to go to the front prior to the battle of Murfreesboro in December of 1862. In 1864 he was promoted to 2nd lieutenant, 13th Regt. US Colored Troops, and mustered out at war's end as a first lieutenant. So no, it does not appear that he was entitled to the rank of major.

But really, is honesty a characteristic that you really want in a spy?

Just a bit of trivia...

AAA88

 
 
Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation