Timelining and revealing the MM

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

What you can imagine and what the reality is may be worlds apart. To many on here are not prepared to consider new suggestions. Phil has raised a very good point which so far no one has been able to answer satisfactorily.

Yet there are posters taking sideways steps by saying things like "I imagine" "I beleive" and coming forward with wild speculative theories in an attempt to gloss over an important issue.

I have said this before on this thread that some of our emminent ripperologists are in a position to put the records straight not only on this thread but on others where issues have been raised. But they sit seemingly locked away in their ripper dens afraid to step back out into the 21st Century world of the ripperology. I have to ask why what have they to hide.?

Whoever has the Aberconway version or a copy have the decency to come forward and post it. All this rubbish about copyright etc what good is doing sitting in someones cabinet. Once everyone sees it hopefully another contentious modern day issue on the ripper can be finally closed. Of course if Phil is correct then there may not even have been an Aberconway version

[Chris]

Phil

As I said, I don't understand what alternative scenario is being suggested.

[Chris]

Trevor

Does it not occur to you that you might do better to contact the authors of the A-Z directly with a polite request, rather than posting demands on a website?

Frankly, the way you are behaving is just making things more difficult for those of us who would like to see this document published.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Reading through this thread I was struck by a random thought.

Wouldn't it be a hoot and a holler plus a right royal kick in the nuts for Ripperology if the "Aberconway" version of the MM turned out to be the "Farson" version?

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

To Simon Wood:
By “Farson version“, do you mean that Farson might have constructed (=forged) the document?
Can I also ask another question, unrelated? Did the UK initiate winter time tonight, as did Germany? Is it about 4.35 a.m. over there? Because casebook's still on summer time. (Unless Simon Wood lives in California, not the UK, in which case I hope someone else answers my question...)

[Jonathan H]

The Aberconway version has essentially been in front of us since 1898, when Major Griffiths adapted it for 'Mysteries of Police and Crime' -- practically line for line, minus Druitt's name -- of course -- and the season train pass.

I would be happy to pay for a book which had a full copy of Macnaghten's alleged 'Home Office Report' (Sims, 1903).

That's what I don't get.

If a copy still exists, and is copyrighted, why is it not commercially available?

[mariab]

It's pretty clear that someone has snatched it. Unless the Aberconway family donated it to some museum and forgot about this, which has happened with a similar case I had in Naples. (My boss had contacted the son, who had no clue whatsoever about his father's manuscript, but when I went into the Biblioteca Nazionale of Naples and conducted an electronic search, the document got located 5' min. later, it had been donated to a little library in the city of Bari, which makes no sense whatsoever, but that's how we got hold of it.)
Still, most imperative would be to get the entire document available from the A-Z, if possible. As for his authenticity, I assume that the ones who possibly have/have had access to a copy of it (Keith Skinner and SPE) would be able to tell.
Hey, maybe the document has ended up in the hands of Patricia Cornwell!! She might conduct DNA tests on it, then destroy it, and donate the remains to the University of Harvard...! And then someone nearby (Rob House?) might go look it up at Harvard...

[Chris]

Wouldn't it be a hoot and a holler plus a right royal kick in the nuts for Ripperology if the "Aberconway" version of the MM turned out to be the "Farson" version?

But how could it have been, considering its relationship with the official version, which no one had seen in 1959?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

Does it not occur to you that you might do better to contact the authors of the A-Z directly with a polite request, rather than posting demands on a website?

Frankly, the way you are behaving is just making things more difficult for those of us who would like to see this document published.

Well all the pussyfooting that has gone on with your suggested way of approach has not worked so I put it another way which I dont believe amounts to a demand.

It would be nice for those persons to come out and at least say why they will not publish it, that would be a start. Until they start to show some tranparency this ill feeling towards them is going to continue.

Perhaps you should decide which side of the fence you are sitting on. You are not excatly overwleming us with pearls of wisdom, Anyone can sit here and critisise and make suggestions.

[Chris]

It's pretty clear that someone has snatched it. Unless the Aberconway family donated it to some museum and forgot about this, which has happened with a similar case I had in Naples.

Or else it's somewhere in the family archives and it's just that the present Lord Aberconway (Christabel's grandson) doesn't know it's there.

[Trevor Marriott]

The Aberconway version has essentially been in front of us since 1898, when Major Griffiths adapted it for 'Mysteries of Police and Crime' -- practically line for line, minus Druitt's name -- of course -- and the season train pass.

I would be happy to pay for a book which had a full copy of Macnaghten's alleged 'Home Office Report' (Sims, 1903).

That's what I don't get.

If a copy still exists, and is copyrighted, why is it not commercially available?

Well unless someone actualy physically purchased it from the Aberconway family then they would own the copyright. Failing that the copyright still remains with the Aberconway family. If however like so many other documents in ripperworld the document was dishonestly appropriated or someone obtained it knowing it had been dishonestly appropriated then i can see why no one wants to admit to now being in possession of it.

The latter still poses a problem for those in posession of copies because questions might be asked as to how they obtained the copies in the first instance.

From my recent conversations with the Aberconway family I have no doubt that should the original come to light they would have no problems with it being published it in full.

If anyone does wish to speak to me in confidence regarding this issue they can PM me or e mail me.

[Chris]

From my recent conversations with the Aberconway family I have no doubt that should the original come to light they would have no problems with it being published it in full.

Thanks. That is useful to know.

[mariab]

If you'd excuse my insistence (particularly as a newbie), I think that most imperative of all would be to make available the entire content of the Aberconway copy, if possible here on casebook, by asking the A-Z editors and mentioning to them that the Aberconway family doesn't have a problem with the copyright issue.
I can hardly imagine that the document is a fake (prepared by Farson). The existence of the official version at Scotland Yard (to which Farson didn't have access) plus the fact that Keith Skinner and SPE didn't detect a fake proves this sufficiently.
I could possibly imagine (perhaps) that the document was copied by Gerald Donner instead of one of the Aberconway sisters (since they have apparently both denied preparing this document at several occasions), in which case it would result that the Aberconway and the Donner version are one and the same. (Perhaps.)
Chris wrote:
Or else it's somewhere in the family archives and it's just that the present Lord Aberconway (Christabel's grandson) doesn't know it's there.
There are Aberconway family archives? At their house or something? Have these archives ever been available to any researchers? To compare with my (so far indirect) experience with the (Carrara-)Verdi family, some family members are informed, others don't have a clue what all they keep in their private archives in their villa Sant'Agata (outside of Parma).
To make it all worse, my boss is currently in Lyon and I've been begging him all night to ask the locals if the Lacassagne family are still located on the premises (as I've found someone with that name still located there on a census search), but he's hesitant to do it, on the grounds that – and I quote – “I am not the person to ask strangers about them, especially since I am totally ignorant about them.“ He makes me NUTS. (But he might ask around later today, after much persuasion in my last email to him.)
By the by, could someone confirm to me? Is it shortly before 10.00 a.m. or shortly before 9.00 a.m. in the UK now? Did you change to winter time, like the continent, or are you waiting to do it with the Yankees next weekend? (I need to call a friend in the UK without waking him up at dawn.)
Thank you.

[Stewart P Evans]

Misreading

...
...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

I think you are misreading Don's text. I have discussed this with Don and he had no contact with Christabel Aberconway. Don's information came from Philip Loftus c. 1972/3 when Don met him in London. Don has never seen the 'Aberconway version'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Farson

Farson explained how he came to see the 'Aberconway version' in 1959 in the introduction to his 1972 book - "A few hours later at Meenan Hall, I explained my interest to Christabel Aberconway and she was kind enough to give me her father's private notes which she had copied out soon after his death."