Timelining and revealing the MM

[Jonathan H]

Stewart,

Thanks so much to you going to the trouble of contacting Mr Skinner, and thanks to him for giving his permission for these excerpts.

A question.

Do you have, or have you ever seen, 'The Morning Post' June 1913 article in which Macnaghten refers to being disappointed over not being in the Eton/Harrow cricket match?

In the preface to his 1914 memoirs he strongly implies that a reporter made this up, and made up that he was disappointed over being too late for the Ripper mystery -- and then he asks the readers to make up their own minds.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Yes, for certain, I agree with your point. That is why I believe the logical answer is that Macnaghten was trying to be very careful in what was presented; thus the Aberconway version being a hastly drawn 'draft' ( as Simon noted in the previous post the Sun articles appeared in short order) and he had little time to offer a response; which - whatever one's take on his reasoning is - had to be measured for some desired effect. The fact that it seemed to never go any farther than Macnaghten's desk is the real mystery here. In the end, someone decided it best not to openly challenge the Sun's allegations; rather, just let the story die a natural death.

I understand Simon's thoughts. It certainly can be perceived as suspicious, but it may have simply been a matter that any public discourse would expose the fact that SY had no conclusive evidence on anyone and as a result, this little 'wakeup call' by the Sun prompted men like Macnaghten and Anderson to 'solidify' their theories on who the culprit was with a more resolute stand that they had, indeed, known who the murderer was.

In other words, the whole sequence with Macnaghten and Anderson appears reactionary on each one of them's part, instead of some planned cohesive effort to hide the 'real truth'.

Hello Hunter,

I transferred the quote above from the thread that deals with the marginalia.

I may be wrong here, but I believe that Lady Christabel Aberconway made her notes after her father's death. That means that it cannot be "thus the Aberconway version being a hastly drawn 'draft' as you write. Aberconway wrote it, not Sir MM.
That means in turn that she made her notes from a version, presumably the original that originates from Scotland Yard. We could presume she made her notes from a rough, or draught copy of her father's original, but we do not know these to exist, so therefore we must presume that she made her copy from the Scotland Yard version.

It is then I ask the obvious question. Why should there be discrepancies and "inaccuracies" in the Aberconway version pertaining to the murders themselves, when the Scotland Yard version of the murdered victims more accurate? Not to mention the additional text in the Aberconway version re Druitt.

In conjunction with this, Farson made his notes from the Aberconway version, having been shown the Aberconway version. Tom Cullen, apparently likewise. Since then, nobody has apparently seen the Aberconway version, apart from those authors who have only produced the hand-written page(s) in their respective books. (That doesn't mean they have seen the entire original). This hand written section is apparently identified to be in the hand of Christabel Aberconway herself. Even Don Rumbelow only confirms that the Aberconway version is "still in her posession", in his book from 1975. (Lady Christabel Aberconway died in 1974, so we know that Don Rumbelow learnt of this prior to her death) He does not state that he has seen it himself. What is confusing here, to say the least, is the comment that Lady Christabel Aberconway gave directly to Don Rumbelow, page 131, The Complete Jack the Ripper..
(my underlining and emphasis in bold)

" My elder sister, ten years older than myself, took all the papers when my mother died- which is why Gerald has them: I have never seen them. But in my father's book "Days of my Years" he talks of "Jack the Ripper"... that is all the information I can give." (my emphasis in bold)

Rumbelow then writes...

"The notes that are still in her posession, which Farson and Cullen both quoted from, are typewritten copies...."

That is why I wish to see the entire Aberconway version. Timeling here is important. Also the adjudication referring to modern theories based upon it.

best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

Good point Phil,

Of course the Aberconway version is presumedly her copy of something Mac wrote. I'm presuming it was a copy of a draft, instead of the official version because the 'official version' is more condensed and less opinionated; more suited to the task at hand... dispelling the Cutbush story. If the Aberconway version contains the relevant parts to Cutbush as well, then it links to the 'official version' in some way because it would otherwise be irrelevant. But, like you, I have not seen that text in its entirity and if it is available, it would be fascinating to see so a total comparision could be made.

[Phil Carter]

The "Aberconway" papers.

Hello Hunter,

In 1992, when the first paperback version of the A-Z came out, the authors stated under Lady Christabel Aberconway..

"Transcribed copy of MacNagthen memoranda from original manuscript" (my emphasis)

Not from any draught notes. This is specific.

In the same publication, under MacNagthen Memoranda, the Lady Aberconway version is described thus..

"..comprises seven typed and numbered sheets, with two handwritten inserts, the first numbered '6A'. These are described in pencil on typed sheet 6 as 'p 6A & 6B, written in ink and attached at the end'. The very brief pencilled observations on the typed sheets (e.g., 'by my father Sir M.M. following the typed heading, Memorandum on articles which appeared in the Sun re JACK THE RIPPER on 13 Feb 1894 and subsequent dates')' are in the hand of Lady Aberconway, as (according to her son) are the insert sheets, despite some obvious differences in character formation and solecism 'conjections'." (my italics)

I am not saying anything is untoward here at all, but where on Earth have I heard an observation relating to differing solecism in a certain discovered written Ripper document before? Strange that. Anyway, I digress..

Stewart Evans has asked as to these documents' whereabouts earlier in this thread. SPE is known to be a collector of related memorabilia second to none, I would hazard to guess with probably the largest collection of documentation and copies of such in the entire world. If SPE doesn't know where the original Aberconway material is, and the family don't know where it is.... "Houston, we have a problem".

As I see this, the Aberconway version isn't a Van Gogh, but it still can't be sold on the open market... it won't sell for enormous sums as the owner gets old either, and means nothing in reality, unless it differs considerably enough from the Scotland Yard version as to cast doubt on its OWN authenticity in relation to that, the Scotland Yard version.

If the Aberconway family still legally own it, but know not of it's whereabouts, then THAT is the reason we cannot see it, because of legal ownership. If so...they are not in posession of something they legally own. The question, of course, is do they? If they do, it would be better off returned to them, so we can all enjoy the entire document.

best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

Hi Phil.

If the A-Z said that, then it was probably a mistake. The official version (the so-called memoranda) differs from the Aberconway version. Unless she embellished it herself, she was copying from a different manuscript. Jonathan believes the Aberconway version (Mac's original) was written in 1898. I, and many other's, including Sugden, believe that it was a draft in preparation for his report( the actual memmorandum) for the Home Office.

A third version was said to exist, also... wonder what happened to it?

[mariab]

Hunter wrote:
A third version was said to exist, also... wonder what happened to it?
Hunter, it's been more or less established that the third version (the Gerald Donner one) is a legend.

[Phil Carter]

A legitimate question

Hello all,

I re-quote the following, a conversation between Don Rumbelow and Lady Christabel Aberconway before she died in 1974, and published in Don Rumbelow's book "The Complete Jack the Ripper" 1975..

" My elder sister, ten years older than myself, took all the papers when my mother died- which is why Gerald has them: I have never seen them. But in my father's book "Days of my Years" he talks of "Jack the Ripper"... that is all the information I can give." (my emphasis in bold)

Would someone please be so kind as to explain to me exactly how Lady Christabel Aberconway made copied notes of the original memoranda, written by her father, without ever having seen her father's papers on the subject of Jack the Ripper as she stated to Don Rumbelow?


best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

I now recall that Phil Carter has posted this question before in this thread. I'm very interested to hear what the experienced Ripperologists will have to say on this.

[Chris]

I now recall that Phil Carter has posted this question before in this thread. I'm very interested to hear what the experienced Ripperologists will have to say on this.

I shall be, too.

It does seem strange that Lady Aberconway would have said that, if it's true that she herself made the copy from her father's original notes. It's equally strange that she wouldn't have mentioned that she possessed a copy of the notes, and that by that time the extract relating to the suspects had been published by Cullen. I suppose she may have been pestered by enquiries at various times, which might explain her reticence. Apparently she would have been around 80 when she made that statement.

I suppose the other possibility is that Farson may have been mistaken about who made the copy. It seems his statement is the main reason it is assumed to have been made by Lady Aberconway. Could it instead have been made for her by her sister at some stage?

[mariab]

Chris wrote:
I suppose she may have been pestered by enquiries at various times, which might explain her reticence. Apparently she would have been around 80 when she made that statement.
That was my exact first reaction to what Phil Carter posted, honestly!
Chris wrote:
I suppose the other possibility is that Farson may have been mistaken about who made the copy. It seems his statement is the main reason it is assumed to have been made by Lady Aberconway. Could it instead have been made for her by her sister at some stage?
Or perhaps by Gerald Donner, which would mean that the Aberconway and the Donner version are one and the same? (Just a thought.)

[Phil Carter]

Farson's rendition

Hello Chris,

The problem with this question, and indeed, with any possible answer that Farson was mistaken etc.. raises doubt about his whole story about the document in the first place. He went to great pains to say that he just happened to be visiting her home that day, by sheer coincidence, as a friend of an aquaitance of LCA.... she showed him the documents.. he made notes from them. Now, there are 7 typed sheets to this document. And two handwritten ones. That takes quite a time to write out. Not the done thing for a guest to sit and copy out notes on an arranged visit to the house of a Lady of the Manor. That arranged visit did NOT include any mention of the MM before they got there, so it would have been very discourteous indeed to sit and use time in her Ladyship's company ignoring the host.

Lady Aberconway cannot be accused of lying. We have no basis for that. Ergo, she told Don Rumbelow the truth.

As to her being pestered. Rumbelow makes no mention of this, or any problem with her being contacted. He also only asked Tom Cullen what he had seen.

Strange that BOTH authors (Cullen and Farson) were promoting of the same man and this document suddenly turns up. We must keep in mind McCormick, who in 1959 produced a book that relied on his own made up stories to bolster his theory. The same year as Farson's visit to LCA and his subsequent TV programme.

All very strange, I think... but then again.. I am a suspicious person.

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

The 'third' version is the chapter in his 1914 memoirs.

He owns up that Druitt was not a contemporaneous suspect, unlike both versions of his Report which imply that this suspect was known to police before he killed himself.

Therefore, with Aberconway at his elbow, Macnaghten -- ill, retired, and only associated in public with a suicided suspect the year before -- made a decisive break with what he had written in those slippery Reports.

- He disagrees with the official version that Druitt was a minor, hearsay suspect.

He is the suspect as in the unofficial version.

- He does not confirm that the suspect was a middle-aged doctor, as in the unofficial version.

He does confirm that 'his own people' are the source of the 'certain facts' leading to 'conclusions', as in the official version.

Of course Lady Aberconway copied them out, and wrote a letter to a newspaper in 1959 confirming their authenticity.

[Chris]

The problem with this question, and indeed, with any possible answer that Farson was mistaken etc.. raises doubt about his whole story about the document in the first place.

I'm afraid I don't see that at all.

I can easily imagine that Farson could have been told by Lady Aberconway in 1959 that - for example - her sister had had a copy made for her, and misremembered that when he came to write his book more than a decade later. Or, for that matter, perhaps he was simply told that a copy had been made, and just assumed it had been made by Lady Aberconway.

I don't see how that raises doubt about what happened in 1959, or indeed what alternative scenario is being suggested.

[mariab]

I apologize for interfering with this as a total newbie, but I think that, instead of debating about the document's authenticity BEFORE having studied it in its entirety, it would be most imperative to try to see if the editors of A-Z would accept to post the entire Aberconway version here on casebook. Anyone on good terms enough with the A-Z editors willing to attempt such a communication?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

We both speculate here. Because we do not know the answer. However implausible it seems, the fact is that Lady Christabel Aberconway, in her own words, stated she had never seen any Jack the Ripper related papers left by her father.
Her age and memory only come into it if she was known to be forgetful, or had some mental impediment in old age. This is not known. Ergo, we must assume she told Don Rumbelow the truth.
Assuming Farson' to have been mistaken, that he assumed that they were Aberconway's papers not LCA's sisters, is countered by the following:-

"A few hours later at Maenen Hall, I explained my interest to Christabel Aberconway and she was kind enough to give me her father's private notes..."

(Dan Farson, page 16, Introduction, Jack the Ripper, paperback, 1973)

She would HAVE to recognise them as her father's notes in order for her to supply them to him...

further...

"...which she had copied out soon after his death"

(from the same page, as above)

Specific time revealed here. After her father died. It cannot have been made out before this. If this is to be questioned as well, then one might as well start questioning anything that LCA has said at any time pertaining to all of this. That brings the whole verification of the Farson story under the microscope.

We cannot have it all ways here. Either Aberconway didn't tell the truth, which we have no evidence for, or if she did lie, then we must question ALL of her part in this story. If Farson tells us the truth, then ergo, LCA didn't tell the truth in conversation with Rumbelow.

People being mistaken, not remembering correctly... those are things we have heard time and time again in Ripperology. After a while, it doesn't wash.

One final thing that I feel is also very important...

In the book quoted above, Farson, in his acknowledgements does NOT thank Lady Christabel Aberconway, nor anknowledge her, or any member of her family for supplying him with the papers she/they apparently owned... to which his whole theory is attached like glue.This oversight is alarming.

He forgot perhaps? Hardly.. he acknowledges Alexander Kelly's Bibliography of "Ripperiana" from 1973 having supplied "invaluable material".
Yet he doesn't mention an acknowledgement of THE most important "invaluable material" he was supplied with? I wonder why...

best wishes

Phil