Timelining and revealing the MM

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Mariab

I argue it is a backdated rewrite because it too snugly fits in with the needs of thw wroiters who were the omp,y people whos aw it, outside of the Mac family.

Also, the conventional wisdom about Macnaghten -- often mistaken -- is that it is a 'draft' from which he then removed all personal references from for the final official copy. But there are details [eg. the train pass, the cop witness, the surgical knives] which are not personal opinion.

I think that people have had it backwards because of the order in which they were first revealed to the public.

The official version was not sent and therefore, in a sense, it was the 'draft', Mac's first go at how to deploy Druitt, howto both reveal and conceal, and Aberconway, because its contents were disseminated to the public, was the 'final' version.

I argue that the indispensable Mac Memoir chapter, 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper', is the real 'third' version and the most accurate -- despite not having Druitt's name.

To Stewart

I'm confused?

I have a copy of the relevant pages from the A to Z, on the Aberconway Version, and it does not have the actual words about the Cutbush case, nor the actual words of what came after the three suspects about other victims -- just summaries.

Do you mean that in the latest edition of this book a complete transcription?

What I really want to know is whether Mac claimed that Cutbush and Cutbush were related, or did he drop that detail?

The thing about Macnaghten is that everything he says and does is calculated for effect, like the thespian walking the boards which he day-dreamed of being as an adolescent.

[mariab]

Jonathan H. wrote:
The thing about Macnaghten is that everything he says and does is calculated for effect.
Most people in the public light do this.
I'd like to read both versions (the Aberconway and the Scotland Yard) in their entirety. And I'm confused too about the new A-Z allegedly containing an entire transcription of the document. Still, there's NO way I'm buying the new A-Z in its current version.

[Stewart P Evans]

Aberconway Version

Personally I lean towards the 'conventional' belief that the 'Aberconway version' is a draft for the officially submitted one. That Macnaghten kept it is obvious as the family still had it after he died.

Manuscripts for published books are usually required to keep to a set word count and it is often necessary to excise any superfluous material in order to comply with this. If the whole transcription of both the Aberconway and official versions were printed it would involve much repetition and would raise the word count unnecessarily. Hence what were deemed to be the relevant sections were published in full.

In the Aberconway version the following appears on page 2 - "I may here mention that this Thomas Cutbush was the nephew of the late well-known Supt. of Executive Branch at C.O."

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

Thank you for your views. That is most interesting about Cutbush...I am personally also interested in the (to quote the A-Z) "brief, and not entirely accurate, summary of the murders of" the C5. I would like to see the differences on this point between the Aberconway version, and the Scotland Yard version. It would also perhaps help many to come to the same evaluation of the Aberconway version as you have given us above.

I have to ask this question, please forgive me, but as certain parts of the Aberconway version have already been repeatedly published and entered into the public domain many years ago, as Chris says, where does the problem in getting the rest of the document published lie? Surely the copyright, is with the owner? I think I am correct in saying however that the A-Z published photograph of the written page of the Aberconway version is from the "author's collection." Does this mean that the author's of the A-Z own the document, in part or in whole? And if so, what is the problem in publication of the complete document for all our perusal?
However, you stated that you too would like to know where the original version of the Aberconway memoranda lies, indicating that you know it not to be in the family's hands for certain at this time? When was it's whereabouts last known?

*edit According to Philip Sugden's 2002 version of his book "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper", he refers to the Aberconway version, in the "notes" section of his book, page 520, as "Document in private ownership".

Forgive the questions. I am just trying to get things clear in my own mind, and perhaps in other's mind's as well.

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Tried

Hello Stewart,
Thank you for your views. That is most interesting about Cutbush...I am personally also interested in the (to quote the A-Z) "brief, and not entirely accurate, summary of the murders of" the C5. I would like to see the differences on this point between the Aberconway version, and the Scotland Yard version. It would also perhaps help many to come to the same evaluation of the Aberconway version as you have given us above.
I have to ask this question, please forgive me, but as certain parts of the Aberconway version have already been repeatedly published and entered into the public domain many years ago, as Chris says, where does the problem in getting the rest of the document published lie? Surely the copyright, is with the owner? I think I am correct in saying however that the A-Z published photograph of the written page of the Aberconway version is from the "author's collection." Does this mean that the author's of the A-Z own the document, in part or in whole? And if so, what is the problem in publication of the complete document for all our perusal?
However, you stated that you too would like to know where the original version of the Aberconway memoranda lies, indicating that you know it not to be in the family's hands for certain at this time? When was it's whereabouts last known?
Forgive the questions. I am just trying to get things clear in my own mind, and perhaps in other's mind's as well.
best wishes
Phil

I have always tried to help others with their research and to provide information where I am able to. I have a lot of information, and so does Keith, built up over many years of research and at considerable expense.

I have noticed a tendency in certain quarters (and I am not pointing the finger at anyone here) for some to demand information and answers, and to criticise when it is not supplied. Now this is a hobby and I don't have to supply anyone with anything if I choose not to. It's easy for me to say go and do your own research, but I appreciate that this is difficult for some to do this. I try my best, and so does Keith, but I am not happy with demands and unwarranted criticism. What's more such behaviour will receive a negative response.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

It is with great respect that I refer, in a continued calm and mild manner, to your response. Yes, you have indeed always tried to help others, and provide information where you are able to. Speaking personally, I have been and am still most grateful for all help given.

Thank you for not pointing fingers. However, if you felt in any way that I was asking these questions in an impolite or disrespectful manner, then let me assure you I was decidedly not doing so. That, as you are well aware, is certainly not my way. They may have been direct, yes, but impolite and disrespectful...no.

I was not in any way demanding any information and answers, but politely asked because I simply do not know the answers to the questions, as I guess many others do not either.

Thank you for the apreciation shown for those of us who it is difficult to do "on the ground research". I was not aware that my text contained any unwarranted criticism though. Neither of your good self, nor any other person. Should indeed that be the case from anyone, then I would certainly understand your negativity.

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

SPE wrote:
Personally I lean towards the 'conventional' belief that the 'Aberconway version' is a draft for the officially submitted one. That Macnaghten kept it is obvious as the family still had it after he died.
This implies that the handwritten sections in the (for the most part typed) Aberconway version are in Macnaghten's hand? Hmmm. The way Jonathan Hainsworth discussed it, it sounded like the handwritten sections were by a DIFFERENT hand, perhaps his daughter's. No way for me to establish any of this until I buy the A-Z (in its hopefully corrected paperback edition) and look up whatever they have printed out as a facsimile, IF they have printed out the handwritten parts. Maybe until the new paperback A-Z comes out I might have finished reading all the Ripperological lit recently acquired plus the entire info posted here on casebook, resulting in my having become less of an impressible newbie. (As we all live in hope.)

Phil Carter wrote:
I would like to see the differences on this point between the Aberconway version and the Scotland Yard version. It would also perhaps help many to come to the same evaluation of the Aberconway version as you {SPE} have given us above.
I agree with this approach. I assume one can peruse the Scotland Yard version at the British National Archives today. If they're anything like the French Archives Nationales, one might even be entitled to xerox the document in its entirety.
Phil Carter wrote:
I have to ask this question, please forgive me, but as certain parts of the Aberconway version have already been repeatedly published and entered into the public domain many years ago, as Chris says, where does the problem in getting the rest of the document published lie? Surely the copyright, is with the owner? I think I am correct in saying however that the A-Z published photograph of the written page of the Aberconway version is from the "author's collection." Does this mean that the author's of the A-Z own the document, in part or in whole? And if so, what is the problem in publication of the complete document for all our perusal?
SPE wrote:
Manuscripts for published books are usually required to keep to a set word count and it is often necessary to excise any superfluous material in order to comply with this. If the whole transcription of both the Aberconway and official versions were printed it would involve much repetition and would raise the word count unnecessarily. Hence what were deemed to be the relevant sections were published in full.
I think SPE's answer to your question makes full sense, Mr Carter. British and American publishers are very firm with word counts, and it recently happened to me that I had to cut off parts of a long quotation of an original document to meet the word count needs in a article to be published in the UK. (Interestingly enough, French and German editors don't hold word counts at all.)
Phil Carter wrote:
Does this mean that the author's of the A-Z own the document, in part or in whole?
I'm ready to bet that the A-Z editors own a full transcription and at least a partial copy (photographed or even xeroxed) of the Aberconway version. Plus it's been already (albeit cryptically) stated in this thread that both Keith Skinner and SPE own a full transcription, transcribed by themselves at some point during their massive research over several decades.
Phil Carter wrote:
However, you stated that you too would like to know where the original version of the Aberconway memoranda lies, indicating that you know it not to be in the family's hands for certain at this time? When was it's whereabouts last known?
I strongly assume it's still in the family's hands, if Trevor Marriott is in the process of negotiating access to the document with the family.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have always tried to help others with their research and to provide information where I am able to. I have a lot of information, and so does Keith, built up over many years of research and at considerable expense.

I have noticed a tendency in certain quarters (and I am not pointing the finger at anyone here) for some to demand information and answers, and to criticise when it is not supplied. Now this is a hobby and I don't have to supply anyone with anything if I choose not to. It's easy for me to say go and do your own research, but I appreciate that this is difficult for some to do this. I try my best, and so does Keith, but I am not happy with demands and unwarranted criticism. What's more such behaviour will receive a negative response.

Stewart
I am sure it is an oversight on your part but would you be so kind as to answer the question I raised in posting number 14.?

[Stewart P Evans]

Not

Hello Stewart,
It is with great respect that I refer, in a continued calm and mild manner, to your response. Yes, you have indeed always tried to help others, and provide information where you are able to. Speaking personally, I have been and am still most grateful for all help given.
Thank you for not pointing fingers. However, if you felt in any way that I was asking these questions in an impolite or disrespectful manner, then let me assure you I was decidedly not doing so. That, as you are well aware, is certainly not my way. They may have been direct, yes, but impolite and disrespectful...no.
...Phil

I was not referring to you Phil.

[Stewart P Evans]

Stewart
I am sure it is an oversight on your part but would you be so kind as to answer the question I raised in posting number 14.?

Yes, must have been an oversight.

[mariab]

Oh, come on! It's crystal clear that the answer to post #14 is "With the editors of A-Z and with a couple of other eminent Ripperologists“.

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Stewart.

And apparently that's wrong according to primary sources: the Cutbushes were not related?

Now that I know that this new edition of the A to Z has the full version of the Aberconway version, I will order it today. I had no idea that a copy of this document still existed at all.


We do not know when Aberconway was written for sure.

We just know that it first enters history in 1898 when it was used by Major Griffiths for 'Mysteries of Police and Crime', and was probably seen by Sims or its content read out to him by Mac.

For example, in 1907 Sims claims that the body of 'the 'doctor'' was recovered [/I]less than a month [/I]after the Kelly murder, matching that document's incorrect date, Dec 3rd -- though the same document has the correct length of time for the deceased Druitt to surface: seven weeks [Grffiths has the correct date of Dec 31st and Sims osilates between the two over the years.]

There is no way Macnaghten could have shown those writers the official version, lying in Scotland Yard archives, because it gave them next to nothing: minor suspects just better than Cutbush --so what? Whereas the Aberconway version gives them a probable solution and beefed up suspects.

An alternate explanation is that Aberconway did come first and Macnaghten was shocked and offended when ordered to rewrite it, with large changes, presumably by Anderson.

That he stewed over this perceived slight for years and then, in 1898, saw his chance to exact revenge, or from his point of view set the record straight -- as that bloody Anderson was also 'cheating' eg. in his press comments taking a minor suspect from that same record and elevating him to Super-suspect status: Kosminski.

Via the literary cronies Macnaghteh would make it clear that it was middle-aged 'Dr. Druitt' who was the original best suspect, the probable fiend -- rightly or wrongly! [It is like Anderson is, typically, misremembering which of the three suspects was above the other two in the rejected draft?]

[mariab]

To Jonathan H.:
I don't think that the new A-Z features the entire Aberconway version.

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh, come on! It's crystal clear that the answer to post #14 is "With the editors of A-Z and with a couple of other eminent Ripperologists“.

Now I wonder who those eminent ripperologists could be and what are the reasons they wont publish the document in question, and why wont they come forward and let us know who has it

Being the suspicious person i am I am thinking there might be something there they dont want us to see. But perhaps someone will allay all my fears so i can sleep easy tonight

[Phil Carter]

To Jonathan H.:
I don't think that the new A-Z features the entire Aberconway version.

Hello Maria, Jonathan,

This is correct. The A-Z does not feature the complete Aberconway transcript.

best wishes

Phil