Accusations of a Ripper "cabal" (Moved from another thread)

[Magpie]

I squandered mine on a take-home large cod and chips, a gherkin, and two - two! - bottles of Newcastle Brown.

You know while such flagrant displays of extravagance like this may be the proverbial fingernails scraping down the proletariate soul of bolshie pinkos like Tom, for the rest of us it's a shining example of the dizzying heights to which we mere mortals may one day aspire. To grasp the gherkin of opportunity, to nibble the cod of literary achievement--nay, to sip the very nectar of success and adulation: of such gossamer threads are the dreams of ordinary Ripperologists woven. The furtile soil in which our ambitions are cultivated and the tendrils of our literary efforts burst forth.

[PaulB]

Thanks Stewart

Obviously we disagree -- or rather just about everybody agrees with you and almost nobody agrees with me.

That 'Aberconway' is a draft is a theory, not a fact, just as it my theory that it is an 1898 backdated rewrite to suit the needs of popular writer-cronies.

I would argue that what many excellent secondary sources such as yourself do not take into account are the full writings of Sims, a Mac source-by-proxy -- in whiuch fictitious details are added to 'Aberconway' (eg. the un-named 'Kosminski' gets to work in a Polish hospital) -- nor Mac's memoirs which blunt, even reverse the trajectory of a fading, exaggerated memory. In that chapter, Macnaghten zeroed in, however obliquely, on a suspect whose name he had also committed to an official file, and to nobody else.

From my point of view, Stewart, the revelation that Mac via Griffiths (and then Sims) had turned the Druitt family into hovering friends was decisive.

Even I think yourself has speculated that this change was made to provide some cover for the family as the story was made public in 1898, and beyond.

But then why not the doctor detail too, which he pointedly did not commit himself too in the official version of the same document? And his age -- exactly ten years wrong?

And the so-called 'evidence' of the suspect's killing himself within hours of Kelly -- as a sort of tormented 'confession' of guilt.

Yet Mac gets the tiny detail of the season rail ticket correct, but major biog. details wrong?!

I don't buy it.

Mac even knows where that season ticket was from and where it was going, which was not reported in the press, except in the same 1889 article which refers to the suicided man's correct age, and correct date of drowning (though, ironically, doesn't include Montie's Christian name).

On the 'Kosminski' thread I have made a point today which I think is pertinent, devastating even, which will hopefully trigger a rigorous debate between us which I always find polite and fun and good-hearted, and I know some others do too.

Jonathan,
Whilst it is indeed a theory that the AC is a 'backdated rewrite' to suite a hypothetical requirement you have postulated for Macnaghten, it lacks support. There is no evidence that Macnaghten was telling his 'cronies' any story other than the truth as he remembered and believed it to be, there is no reason to suppose that he needed to produce a 'rewrite' or, even that if he did, that he would have bothered to re-produce the report about Cutbush rather than just some notes of his own, and the most obvious interpretation of the AV is that it is a draft. And in support of its being a draft is that it is more personal and less factual, which in my experience is the case with drafts. The finished copy is usually precised down.

[Ally]

It is all very well and good for people who have been privileged to see a copy of the Aberconway to look down and go "Oh it's not that important, there's nothing there" but you will forgive us lowly peons if we'd actually prefer to see the exact document and text for ourselves. It's this idiotic little quirk some people have about seeing a source for themselves, rather than just accepting the opinions of those on high, regarding its value and what we should think about it.

[Jonathan H]

To Paul

I appreciate you engaging me in a debate about this idea, as you must find it quite tiresome -- even a silly theory.

I can only quickly explain why I respectfully disagree:

Reading all the sources on Macnaghten, and by Macnaghten, shows that he did indeed have a terrific memory, and that he was too discreet, and too smooth, to endanger the Druitt relations with a profile of their member which was so specific as Sims outlined in the 1900's -- unless Mac knew it to be a semi-fictional red herring (in his memoirs he dropped most of these fictional details).

The two versions of the 'Home Office Report' are not just personal and inaccurate information being removed from one to another. In each version Druitt is completely different in status as a suspect; the family and Macnaghten, in effect, swap places as to who was certain about what (in effect, both documents are entirely personal).

In 1903 George Sims claims that Abberline is wrong -- Abberline! -- because there is a definitive document of state lodged with the Home Office. It is Sims' trump card.

It is also a lie -- the status of the document -- which a self-serving Mac never corrected.

To me it is too much of a coincidence that Macnaghten had a 'draft' in his drawer, one which would be acceptable to writers, jusst as the official version would not be (eg. no prime suspects, don't know if this Druitt was a doctor or not, no surgical knives for Ostrog, no witness for the Pole, et. al.)

Cutbush was the figleaf as to why it was written so late, supposedly 1894, and furthermore was another lie as he was not the nephew of the retired policeman of the same surname.

If this was not a lie, amongst other lies, then we are back to Mac the appalling bumbler -- which flies in the face of all the primary sources on this supposedly competent, diligent, compassionate and deft administrator.

I also argue that Mac was aware that [the un-named] 'North Country Vicar' of 1899 was going to reveal what he knew about Druitt, but as 'substantial truth in fictitious form'.

That the Vicar would have to be headed off with Mac's own semi-fictional version of the same suspect. The difference being that the tale Griffiths and Sims propagated, for Mac, made the Yard look a whole lot better than [the allegedly] dotty Vicar did -- who was crushed, dismissed and forgotten.

The clergyman had claimed that the Ripper had time to confess, after the final murder, to a priest and Sims had rudely proclaimed that this was quite impossible, as the 'raving, shrieking fiend' killed himself that same morning -- when the real Druitt, of course, had three weeks to confess and kill himself! (The Vicar's semi-fictional construct is closer to Druitt than Macnaghten-Griffiths-Sims' Drowned Doctor -- and yet we know the latter is derived from Montague Druitt.)

Yet in 1902, Sims adopted a central tenet of the Vicar's 'ludicrous' tale; that the 'doctor' had not practised as a medical man for years and years -- he had indeed been 'at one time a surgeon' but no longer.

Is there something wrong with me that seems all so, well, so obvious...?

[Carol]

It is all very well and good for people who have been privileged to see a copy of the Aberconway to look down and go "Oh it's not that important, there's nothing there" but you will forgive us lowly peons if we'd actually prefer to see the exact document and text for ourselves. It's this idiotic little quirk some people have about seeing a source for themselves, rather than just accepting the opinions of those on high, regarding its value and what we should think about it.

Well said, Ally! Would you like me to sign your petition about it?

Love
Carol

[PaulB]

It is all very well and good for people who have been privileged to see a copy of the Aberconway to look down and go "Oh it's not that important, there's nothing there" but you will forgive us lowly peons if we'd actually prefer to see the exact document and text for ourselves. It's this idiotic little quirk some people have about seeing a source for themselves, rather than just accepting the opinions of those on high, regarding its value and what we should think about it.

It's only two people who have the AV discussing it between themselves, Ally, and have you ever asked to see the material for yourself? Keith and Martin Howells wrote about it in their 1987 book and extracts have been published at various times down the years, yet only now has anyone started beating at the gates to see the document. It's never been hidden, it's content hasn't been wrapped in secrecy, a copy has been given to those who asked for it. I don't know who has asked Keith for a copy, or whose has been refused a copy, but there's only one person I can recall who asked me and that was recently. But when did it become required or customary for an author to make his source and research materials available to others? Authors hopefully cite their source and if you are lucky they give the location, although sometimes it can be simply given as 'private collection' if it isn't publicly accessible. If someone wants to see it then it is generally their responsibility to track it down for themselves. It may not be wholly satisfactory, but isn't it the way things are?

[Ally]

Hi Paul,

As for me asking to see it for myself, no I am afraid I haven't and I won't.

As I told someone else, I presume that such a request comes with a promise of secrecy that I will not make. If this hadn't been made such a big deal, with "we were going to publish it, but now not" and the general feeling of "nyah nyah" that goes along with those who have seen it now, I would have asked to see it, however I only became aware of it after it had become a huge deal on the boards and became some sort of "haves vs. the have nots".

I will see it, or not see it, when everyone else does.

[PaulB]

You know while such flagrant displays of extravagance like this may be the proverbial fingernails scraping down the proletariate soul of bolshie pinkos like Tom, for the rest of us it's a shining example of the dizzying heights to which we mere mortals may one day aspire. To grasp the gherkin of opportunity, to nibble the cod of literary achievement--nay, to sip the very nectar of success and adulation: of such gossamer threads are the dreams of ordinary Ripperologists woven. The furtile soil in which our ambitions are cultivated and the tendrils of our literary efforts burst forth.

I did give serious thought to the wisdom of shedding a little light on the way Ripper authors debauch themselves on the fortunes generated by their books, but I thought the offence it might give some was outweighed by the spur such heady heights might give to others.

[Monty]

Wow,

Trevors Jedi mind tricks seemed to have worked.

Again, Trevor.....have you any evidence blah blah blah.

Monty

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

As for me asking to see it for myself, no I am afraid I haven't and I won't.

As I told someone else, I presume that such a request comes with a promise of secrecy that I will not make. If this hadn't been made such a big deal, with "we were going to publish it, but now not" and the general feeling of "nyah nyah" that goes along with those who have seen it now, I would have, however I only became aware of it after it had become a huge deal on the boards and became some sort of "haves vs. the have nots".

I will see it, or not see it, when everyone else does.

Well, that's the point: It's been out there, known about, extracts published, and so on and so on for over two decades and hardly anyone has given a damn, then all of a sudden it becomes a 'big thing' and people like yourself want to see it and, perhaps understandably, perceive an element of 'nyah nyah' in those who have seen it. Nobody is actually doing that, but we made the effort to ask. That said, there is absolutely no requirement on anyone to publish or otherwise make their research material available or do anything with it at all. We're all grateful when they do, but they don't have to.

[Ally]

Wow,

Trevors Jedi mind tricks seemed to have worked.

Again, Trevor.....have you any evidence blah blah blah.

Monty

Oh we long since gave up on Trevor providing any sort of support for his ludicrous claims and redeeming himself in the slightest.

I think it's cute you still have hope he'll do something credible.

But I support your endeavor. So Trevor: any support, factual argument or single piece of evidence to back up your claims?

[Ally]

Well, that's the point: It's been out there, known about, extracts published, and so on and so on for over two decades and hardly anyone has given a damn, then all of a sudden it becomes a 'big thing' and people like yourself want to see it and, perhaps understandably, perceive an element of 'nyah nyah' in those who have seen it.

Actually....what's the point?? I don't quite get it. Because no one cared previously, why should anyone care now? It doesn't really matter what prompted the sudden interest, does it? If people are interested now, they are. And the "nyah, nyah" only comes in when everyone is being told, if you'd been more polite in how you asked maybe we would have let you see it.

That said, there is absolutely no requirement on anyone to publish or otherwise make their research material available or do anything with it at all. We're all grateful when they do, but they don't have to.

And no one has said that they are required to make it available. But neither should they dangle that information in front of us, and go, "we have it, and you can't see it". No, they don't have to give it to us. As I have said previously, they can do whatever they like with their research including lighting it on fire or using it as toilet paper.

But if you aren't going to show it, don't talk about it on a public forum, because then you open yourself up for the kinds of bad feeling and accusations like what is happening now. Taunting of that nature NEVER goes well for the person doing the taunting.

[PaulB]

Is there something wrong with me that seems all so, well, so obvious...?

No, I'm afraid it has always been the trailblazer's lot to blaze the trail alone, their personal Grail only clearly visible to them. When the path is eventually clear, others will follow. Or the path grows over again and unfortunately the history of human endeavour is littered with the corpses of the many who failed in their quest, but other succeed and the world is changed. Not knowing your destiny is part of the adventure of life, the belief that one day you will open the eyes of those who wish to see.

[Monty]

Oh I'm fully aware Trevor won't respond Ally.

He has nothing so won't reply.

To be honest, I am bored shedless with this MM debate. Surely there's a proper home for it.

I want to keep the airwaves open incase I get a close encounter of the first kind from Trevor.

Monty

[PaulB]

Actually....what's the point?? I don't quite get it. Because no one cared previously, why should anyone care now? It doesn't really matter what prompted the sudden interest, does it? If people are interested now, they are. And the "nyah, nyah" only comes in when everyone is being told, if you'd been more polite in how you asked maybe we would have let you see it.

No, the point is that nobody asked, politely or not.

And no one has said that they are. But neither should the dangle that information in front of us, and go, "we have it, and you can't see it". No, they don't have to give it to us. As I have said previously, they can do whatever they like with their research including lighting it on fire or using it as toilet paper.

I'm sorry, Ally, but nobody tauntingly dangled the AV in front of you and said you can't see it. It's been about for 20 years and you never asked to see it, and never gave it a second thought. All that's happened is that it was going to be published in the next A to Z, although an earlier publication elsewhere had long been discussed and will hopefully come to fruition very soon, and that Trevor's nasty insinuations dashed any immediate thought of it being published on the internet. If the explanation of what happened is perceived as dangling the AV in front of you, thet wasn't the intention.

But if you aren't going to show it, don't talk about it on a public forum, because then you open yourself up for the kinds of bad feeling and accusations like what is happening now. Taunting of that nature, NEVER goes well for the person doing the taunting.

That's a very fair comment, although some consideration should be given to the fact that it had been stated that the AV will be published and Stewart observed that publication will probably be a disappointment because all or most of the differences between it and the SY version have been published anyway.