Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Timelining and revealing the MM

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

  • Timelining and revealing the MM

    Hello all,

    I, like many others, have pondered, re-pondered, and almost given up on the (in)famous memoranda. There are so many things that tell me not to bother, yet again and again I look at it. Why? Is this document SO inportant? Apparently, it is. So, with a fresh set of specs on, I have attempted a little piece for all to chew over. I leave you all to think of the possibilies....

    There are two, possibly three versions of the memoranda.

    The Scotland Yard version of these notes, written in 1894 by Sir MM, somehow found their way into Scotland Yard at an unknown date, contained in the Met Police files. These are "hand written notes, comprising seven foolscap sheets". (A-Z, 2010)

    A second version, Lady Christabel Aberconway's copied down version, written after Sir MM's death, contains seven typed and numbered quarto sheets, with two handwritten inserts. (A-Z, 2010)

    A third version, The Gerald Donner version, is handwritten, "private notes on official paper, rather untidy and in the nature of rough jottings." (A-Z ,2010).

    Because we have no date in which we know for certain Sir MM's original notes entered the Met Police Files, let us move onto Lady Christabel's version.

    In the A-Z. 2010, it states:-

    "The Lady Aberconway version (of the memoranda), was discovered by Dan Farson in 1959"

    Dan Farson, in his 1973 paperback version of his book ( Jack the Ripper) in the introduction, states:-

    "she (Lady Christabel Aberconway) was kind enough to give me her father's private notes which she had copied out soon after his death."

    Lady Aberconway states that she copied the memoranda which had actually been in the posession of her elder sister, Julia Donner, who posessed the original notes when inheriting them from their mother. Julia Donner died in 1938. More on her later... however...

    In 1992, 18 years after her death, in the Sunday Express of 24th May 1992, Michael Thornton recalled her saying mischievously in 1972 that the memoranda gave "the official line" and the truth could cause the throne to totter.

    In 2006, The Daily Mail of 2nd December 2006, Michael Thornton reported her saying her father was convinced the Ripper was Druitt. (A-Z, 2010)

    Don Rumbelow states that the Aberconway version is (at that time), still in her posession. Is this still the case, one wonders?

    Now, Mrs Julia Donner's version.

    The A-Z states the following:-

    "Inherited the version of the MM from which Lady (Christabel) Aberconway transcribed her surviving copy. Present whereabouts of Mrs Donner's version, unknown, but it seems likely to jave passed down to her son, Gerald Donner and might just be the version shown to Philip Loftus in 1950."

    Now if the A-Z is correct, the version Julia Donner had cannot be the same as the version in Scotland Yard, because its whereabouts is "unknown". So Julia Donner apparently inherited from her mother, Sir MM's wife, a third version. If this version was Gerald Donner's (her son's) version (the one's in the nature of jottings), it seems that these could be the pre-original version that Sir MM initially made before he re-wrote the whole piece that sits in the Met Police files. (a rough draught copy).

    After Julia Donner died, the next we hear is from her son Gerald Donner, in 1950, who apparently showed some notes (a rough version of "jottings") to Philip Loftus. Gerald Donner died in Madras, leaving no trace of any Ripper documents.

    Photographic Evidence.

    The version from Scotland Yard is still in the posession of the National Archives. . The Lady Aberconway version, has, to the best of my knowledge, ONLY been seen as a single sheet (a hand written sheet) in printed bookform and has not been published in it's entirety with the typed pages, anywhere. I note that the page from this version presented to us in all 4 editions of the A-Z (1992, 1994, 1996 all paperback, and the hardback 2010) is a photographed who's copyright lies with the autors of the book. One wonders if the authors (or anyone else) have photographs of the entire document? Has anyone got a complete copy pf the Lady Aberconway version to post?

    The question moves on to the possible destruction of Sir MM's other notes and documents he had in his posession pertaining to the Ripper. He himself stated that he had destroyed all that were in his posession.

    In the 1975 edition of Don Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack the Ripper, page 88, the author writes...

    " In general, the documents are a haphazard collection and their very haphazardness suggests that they have been well picked over in the past 100 years. The only recorded destruction of any part of them is attributed to Sir Melville Macnaghten, who is alleged to have burned the most incriminating of the papers to protect the murderer's family. His daughter denies this story and says that her father probably said that he had done this to stop himself from being pestered at his club". (my italics)

    In November 1959, Lady Aberconway denied the likelihood of her father burning any Ripper documents. (New Statesman) .

    Something to mull over, perhaps?

    best wishes

    Phil
    Last edited by Phil Carter; 10-11-2010, 07:37 PM.
    Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


    Justice for the 96 = achieved
    Accountability? ....

  • #2
    Excellent Phil... and quite intriguing.

    I've always wondered if the Aberconway version contained a preface about Cutbush; which, if it did, would diminish the notion that it was written at a much later date than the official version. Mentioning Cutbush at that latter stage would, of course, be unnecessary.

    Knowning this would give us a better understanding of Macnaghten's thought process and maybe the reason for the many errors. -i.e- deliberate or just mistaken.
    Best Wishes,
    Hunter
    ____________________________________________

    When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

    Comment


    • #3
      To Hunter

      But we do know that Aberconway referred to Cutbush in its opening pages.

      This is mentioned by both Cullen and Farson, and its in the A to Z. The pity is that the earlier writers did not include the whole document in their books, even as an appendix. Those copies, along with the original, are now presumably gone forever.

      The theory I have put is that Aberconway is a back-dated rewrite.

      Therefore, it was essential to keep the Cutbush element so that when Macnaghten showed the new document to Griffiths, and then probably Sims, it could seem to originate from 1894. The evidence that it is a rewrite is this:

      1. Macnaghten lied in telling the Major and the playwright that it was 'conclusive' and 'final' 'Home Office Report'.

      2. Druitt is catapulted from being a minor suspect into definitely a Dr Jekyllish figure, with Macnaghten and the Druitts swapping places over who 'believed' in his guilt [The indefinite, hearsay-driven, 'said to be a doctor' version would not have cut it with the literary cronies].

      3. All three suspects are beefed up; Druitt is a middle-aged, deranged doctor, found with a train ticket which took him from Blackheath to within walking distance of the East End, Kosminski was maybe seen by a beat cop, and even Ostrog gets to carry surgical knives.


      To Phil Cater

      The so-called Donner/Loftus third version never existed in my opinion. It was simply the Aberconway version being misremembered -- the memory contaminated by having read Cullen in the interim. This is cogently argued by Evans and Rumbelow in 'Scotland Yard Investigates'.

      The real 'third' version is his own 1914 memoir chapter, 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper', the only version Macnaghten wrote for public view under his own name -- and which is the most accurate about the un-named Druitt.

      A chapter, it should be noted, in which Macnaghten never mentions his one, sole known contribution to the Ripper saga: writing a Report on the case for the Home Office, though never sent there.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hello Hunter, Jonathan,

        Thanks for the responses. Re Cutbush, that is one reason why I ask if anyone has photographic copies of the whole of the Aberconway version, typed pages and all. I have personally never seen one.

        As far as the Donner version is concerned, this has not, to the best of my knowledge at least, been seen since the 1950's. Whether it actually exists, or ever existed at all, is of course a matter of conjecture. The strange additional titbit that a framed original copy of the "Dear Boss" letter was hanging on his wall when Loftus visited Gerald Donner, combined with the additional comment that three "Jack the Ripper" letters were in frames on Gerald Donner's wall in India adds fuel to the exstance/non-existance of the Donner version of the MM. Knowing when the Dear Boss letter, the original, was last seen, and where, would help to confirm/de-bunk the Loftus comments, timeline wise at least.

        best wishes

        Phil
        Last edited by Phil Carter; 10-11-2010, 11:45 PM.
        Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


        Justice for the 96 = achieved
        Accountability? ....

        Comment


        • #5
          My guess would be that whichever came first, second (and maybe third); all but the original (whichever that may be) was written with an earlier version at hand. I simply cannot see Macnaughton sitting at his desk trying to write a later version of the memoranda completely from memory and managing to get it as correct as he did. Granted many details have been beefed up, but the general storyline is almost eaxactly the same and there are many wording and formatting similarities which you just can't explain if later versions came only from memory.

          I challenge anyone on these boards (who arguably know the memoranda as well if not better than Macnaughton himself) to rewrite it from memory as exactly as possible without looking at the original. I bet you will have nowehere near as many similarities in yours as exist between the Met version and the Aberconway versions.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Raoul's Obsession View Post
            My guess would be that whichever came first, second (and maybe third); all but the original (whichever that may be) was written with an earlier version at hand. I simply cannot see Macnaughton sitting at his desk trying to write a later version of the memoranda completely from memory and managing to get it as correct as he did. Granted many details have been beefed up, but the general storyline is almost eaxactly the same and there are many wording and formatting similarities which you just can't explain if later versions came only from memory.

            I challenge anyone on these boards (who arguably know the memoranda as well if not better than Macnaughton himself) to rewrite it from memory as exactly as possible without looking at the original. I bet you will have nowehere near as many similarities in yours as exist between the Met version and the Aberconway versions.
            As part of my ongoing investigation into a number of important ripper issues, this being one of them.

            I am currently in talks with the Aberconway family regarding Lady Christobal Aberconway and the said copy of the memo.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              As part of my ongoing investigation into a number of important ripper issues, this being one of them.

              I am currently in talks with the Aberconway family regarding Lady Christobal Aberconway and the said copy of the memo.
              Well, getting that published is something I would support wholeheartedly. I know you're not the first to have tried, so good luck.

              Comment


              • #8
                Macnaghten's memoir chapter, 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper', (1914), is the real 'third' version of his Report, as it is clearly an adaptation of the Aberconway 1888 backdated rewrite of the official version from 1894 [the 'Donner version' obviously never existed].

                Since 'Laying the Ghost ...' is the only Ripper-related document under Macnaghten's name for public consumption it is, arguably, his definitive version, taking into account that he claims that his memory may have failed him somewhat about certain details.

                The un-named Druitt also appears in the preface, where he is tantalizingly juxtaposed with a lie -- about championship cricket.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sorry, 1898 backdated rewrite ...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes

                    Originally posted by Hunter View Post
                    ...
                    I've always wondered if the Aberconway version contained a preface about Cutbush; which, if it did, would diminish the notion that it was written at a much later date than the official version. Mentioning Cutbush at that latter stage would, of course, be unnecessary...
                    Yes, it does contain the preliminary mention of Cutbush.
                    SPE

                    Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Keith Skinner

                      Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
                      ...
                      This is mentioned by both Cullen and Farson, and its in the A to Z. The pity is that the earlier writers did not include the whole document in their books, even as an appendix. Those copies, along with the original, are now presumably gone forever...
                      Thanks to Keith Skinner's pioneering and meticulous research in the 1980s we are fortunate that a copy of this document does exist. A very good transcription and a copy of one of the handwritten pages appears in The Complete Jack the Ripper A To Z.
                      SPE

                      Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        As Stated

                        Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                        ...
                        Re Cutbush, that is one reason why I ask if anyone has photographic copies of the whole of the Aberconway version, typed pages and all. I have personally never seen one.
                        As far as the Donner version is concerned, this has not, to the best of my knowledge at least, been seen since the 1950's. Whether it actually exists, or ever existed at all, is of course a matter of conjecture. The strange additional titbit that a framed original copy of the "Dear Boss" letter was hanging on his wall when Loftus visited Gerald Donner, combined with the additional comment that three "Jack the Ripper" letters were in frames on Gerald Donner's wall in India adds fuel to the exstance/non-existance of the Donner version of the MM. Knowing when the Dear Boss letter, the original, was last seen, and where, would help to confirm/de-bunk the Loftus comments, timeline wise at least.
                        ...Phil
                        As stated above, a copy has been preserved, it contains no surprises.

                        I am happy that the 'Donner version' never existed but arises out of a confused memory.
                        SPE

                        Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Seen

                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          ...
                          I am currently in talks with the Aberconway family regarding Lady Christobal Aberconway and the said copy of the memo.
                          It has already been seen and transcribed. However, no doubt you would be keen to see it yourself and it would be interesting to establish its current whereabouts.
                          SPE

                          Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Stewart P Evans View Post
                            It has already been seen and transcribed. However, no doubt you would be keen to see it yourself and it would be interesting to establish its current whereabouts.
                            Where is the full transcription of the Aberconway version then

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I assume that NOT the entire Aberconway version has been transcribed in the A-Z (which I'm awaiting to buy when a corrected paperback version comes out), plus an entire page has been published there as a facsimile? I have to admit that Jonathan Hainsworth's suggestion that the Aberconway version was written later than the official version and backdated appears very convincing. The best of lucks to Trevor Marriott with the Aberconway family, although it looks like SPE and Keith Skinner already own copies of the Aberconway version?
                              It also appears as very plausible that the “Donner version“ never existed.
                              As for the Scotland Yard version, is it still in the possession of the National Archives, and can it be consulted there (perhaps even online)?
                              Best regards,
                              Maria

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X