Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Missing Memorandum

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Oh this should be very, very interesting!

    Cheers,
    Adam.

    Comment


    • #17
      To Simon Wood:
      I assume this will be revealed in the book that you're currently preparing, Deconstructing Jack: The secret history of the Whitechapel murders?
      With apologies for misdirecting this thread (for the last time, I promise): Will your friend's alleged mysterious find pertaining to L.J. Palmer's research be discussed/revealed in the casebook forums in the near future? It certainly hasn't been discussed in the current threads in question (unless I've missed something big time.)
      Best regards,
      Maria

      Comment


      • #18
        Ms Mariab,

        Who is L.J. Palmer?

        And who is my friend with an alleged mysterious find?

        You truly are an international woman of mystery.

        Regards,

        Simon
        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

        Comment


        • #19
          Simon Wood:
          And who is my friend with an alleged mysterious find?

          That would be the million $ question.
          But I won't further insist.
          Maybe I'm an international woman with a tad of experience in unveiling mystery.
          And please, Mr Wood, call me Maria. (But only if you'd wish to.)
          PS.: And sorry, it is Roger J. Palmer, I think!
          Last edited by mariab; 11-07-2010, 04:47 AM.
          Best regards,
          Maria

          Comment


          • #20
            Hi All,

            Robin Odell was the first person to see the Macnaghten Memorandum contained in the Scotland Yard files. This was in 1965. His discovery came too late for inclusion in the hardback edtion of "Jack the Ripper in Fact and Fiction", and so parts of the MM first appeared in his subsequent paperback edition.

            Robin explained to me the circumstances of his discovery–

            "I had access to this document in, I think, 1965, when Joe Gaute, using one of his contacts at Scotland Yard, brought home several box files containing Ripper material to be perused over the weekend and returned without fail on the Monday morning."

            I was curious to know if the document Robin saw was that currently on file at the National Archives [MEPO 3/141, ff. 177-83], so asked him if he had any recollections as to the MM's format – single or double-sided pages etc - and whether it was written on official embossed "Metropolitan Police Office" paper, bore any file references or "date received" rubber stamps. All basic ground-clearing stuff that any good researcher would ask.

            Here is Robin's reply–

            "I clearly remember that in my draft text I described the notes, 'written on several lined blue foolscap sheets'. Joe thought this direct reference might get his contact into difficulty so the text was put into a more matter-of-fact context. As far as I am aware, there was never any comeback once the book was published."

            This was clearly not the "official" version.

            Robin went into more specific detail about the document he had seen.

            "1. The document consists of seven foolscap sheets. I cannot recall with certainty whether these were single or double-sided and they were not numbered.

            "2. There is no heading. The text goes straight into the lead sentence, "The Case referred to in the sensational story told in 'the Sun' . . . . ." and the sentence is not indented.

            "3. The foolscap sheets are plain and not official police letterhead; there is no file reference, embossing or rubber stamping.

            "4. The text is fluently handwritten in the manner of a typical police report of the day - wide left-hand margin and a tight, almost justified, right-hand margin.

            "5. There is no concluding paragraph or summary, just MM's signature and the date, 23rd February 1894."

            Firstly, this document cannot have been the Donner/Loftus version "in Sir Melville's handwriting on official paper, rather untidy and in the nature of rough jottings." Secondly, because in detail it matched the "official" version it cannot have been the lost original of the report transcribed by Lady Aberconway and her secretary. And thirdly, it cannot have been the "official" version itself, a document not contained in the box files examined by Robin Odell and one which would not surface until the mid-1970s.

            It will come as no surprise to learn that the present whereabouts of the document seen by Robin are unknown.

            These are the facts of the matter. My grateful thanks to Robin Odell, a gentleman and a jewel in the crown of Ripperology.

            Regards,

            Simon

            PS. For anyone comparing texts, please note that a couple of errors crept into Robin's paperback edition–

            "The version of that part of MM's text used in the paperback edition of JTR in F & F squares with the official version with some minor exceptions. MM's "relations" was turned into "relatives" and his "3 men" became "three men". I guess these were discrepancies introduced during the editorial process. Well, that's my excuse anyway!"

            S.
            Last edited by Simon Wood; 11-07-2010, 03:43 PM. Reason: spolling mistook
            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

            Comment


            • #21
              whoa!

              Hello Simon. Interesting research! The gravy thickens.

              Cheers.
              LC

              Comment


              • #22
                Indeed it is,

                Lynn, funny you should mention Gravy.
                Washington Irving:

                "To a homeless man, who has no spot on this wide world which he can truly call his own, there is a momentary feeling of something like independence and territorial consequence, when, after a weary day's travel, he kicks off his boots, thrusts his feet into slippers, and stretches himself before an inn fire. Let the world without go as it may; let kingdoms rise and fall, so long as he has the wherewithal to pay his bills, he is, for the time being, the very monarch of all he surveys. The arm chair in his throne; the poker his sceptre, and the little parlour of some twelve feet square, his undisputed empire. "

                Stratford-on-Avon

                Comment


                • #23
                  Slow Down

                  Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                  Hi All,
                  Robin Odell was the first person to see the Macnaghten Memorandum contained in the Scotland Yard files. This was in 1965. His discovery came too late for inclusion in the hardback edtion of "Jack the Ripper in Fact and Fiction", and so parts of the MM first appeared in his subsequent paperback edition.
                  ...
                  Simon
                  ...
                  I say...I said...Slow down boy.....................

                  Before anyone gets too excited there is no reason at all to suppose that what Robin saw was not the same document that everyone else saw before it was folio numbered in the 1980s before microfilming.

                  I have a photocopy of this document taken during that period before microfilming - it has no folio page numbers.
                  SPE

                  Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Doesn't Exist

                    Originally posted by The Grave Maurice View Post
                    C'mon, Simon, the suspense is killing me. Someone who is "sitting on unseen Ripper material" would have to be one of the biggies. Stewart, apparently, has never heard of it, and Rumbelow, et al. don't hang around here, so you probably aren't going to get any takers. We're ready for the unveiling. (And I'm very glad that Tumblety is out of the picture.)
                    With good reason - it doesn't exist.
                    SPE

                    Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Fog

                      Simon's elaborate conspiracy theory is now generating so much fog that the wood cannot be seen for the trees.
                      SPE

                      Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Hi Stewart,

                        The MM on Casebook has no folio numbers. Who provided those images?

                        Was the original of your photocopied document blue ruled foolscap?

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Hi Stewart,

                          As you are accusing me of an elaborate conspiracy theory, you must also be accusing Robin.

                          I am certain he would not appreciate that sentiment. I certainly don't.

                          A simple apology will suffice.

                          Regards,

                          Simon
                          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Simon Wood wrote:
                            The MM on Casebook has no folio numbers. Who provided those images?

                            Maybe SPE, as he owns a photocopy of it? I think that in the thread “Timelining and revealing the MM“ we established that the version without pagination is simply the copy of the document taken whilst it was still at Scotland Yard in the 1970s, before it got folio numbers stamped on it by the PRO.
                            I assume that foolscap is about the size of today's A4, just a tiny bit bigger?
                            Best regards,
                            Maria

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                              Hi Stewart,

                              The MM on Casebook has no folio numbers. Who provided those images?

                              Was the original of your photocopied document blue ruled foolscap?

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              For what its worth I recenlty sent both a text and and e mail to Stephen Ryder asking for the details and source of the photos which appear on casebook.

                              That was several weeks ago to date I have had no reply It seems to me that whenever anyone on here hits a nerve or asks an awkward question the silence become almost deafening.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Robin Odell

                                Robin Odell is a scholar and a gentleman and one of the nicest people you are likely to meet from the ranks of Ripper authors.

                                He is also one of my own Ripper icons and his 1965 book Jack the Ripper In Fact and Fiction was one of the first book-length treatments of the case that I read. I was duly impressed. And it was the 1966 Mayflower paperback edition of Robin's book that led me to the London Hospital in 1967 to obtain a copy of The London Hospital Gazette of April 1966 containing the new Eddowes information. Since those heady days it has been my pleasure to meet Robin on several occasions and I have found him to be always pleasant and helpful. He told me years ago of how Joe Gaute had 'borrowed' the Scotland Yard files back in the 1960s allowing him and Joe to go through them. I was staggered to hear that such important official and historical documentation could be 'loaned out' to lay members of the public.

                                Simon's account of Robin's recollections on this topic are most interesting but in no way lead me to believe that he saw anything but the report that I have a photocopy of, which was taken in 1968. Interestingly 1965 was the year that the material was passed from New Scotland Yard to the Public Record Office.

                                1. Yes the document consists of seven foolscap sheets (indeed my photocopies are the old foolscap size). They are unnumbered.

                                2. There is no heading other than the word 'Confidential' written across the top left hand corner of the first page. The text does go straight into the lead sentence, 'The case referred to in the sensational story told in "The Sun", and yes, the sentence is not indented.

                                3. The foolscap sheets are, indeed, plain with no official letterhead and there is no file reference or rubber stamping. There is, however, the small blind embossed stamp of the Metropolitan Police at the centre of the top of the page. As this is blind it does not appear clearly and may not be remembered if recalling what was seen many years ago.

                                4. The text is 'fluently handwritten in the manner of a typical police report of the day - wide left hand margin and a tight, almost justified, right-hand margin.'

                                5. There is no concluding paragraph or summary, just Macnaghten's signature and the date, 23rd February 1894.

                                I repeat - there is no reason to believe that the Donner/Loftus 'version' existed in any other sense than Loftus saw the known 'draft' version and when writing about it any years later his memory was contaminated, especially having read, by then, Cullen's book. It is a nonsense to suggest that it is not the official version - i.e. the one I have a 1968 photocopy of.

                                The present whereabouts of the document seen by Robin is in The National Archives filed under MEPO 3/141, ff. 177-183.

                                These are the facts of the matter.
                                SPE

                                Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X