Timelining and revealing the MM

[Trevor Marriott]

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."

Has it been seen since 1959 and are there copies of the original in existence ?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

Thank you for discussing this with Don Rumbelow. I, like others, have a fine regard for his sterling efforts in this field. Talking of whom, he writes of both sets of papers, in his book, on page 143, 1987 reprint edition, the following:-

"...His (Macnagthen's) notes are reproduced below in full for the first time anywhere. There are seven foolscap pages, in his handwriting, with hardly a blot or deletion throughout. Presumably this copy was written from those rough jottings that were in the posession of his grandson. As such, and as it is dated, it must be regarded as the prima facia document. By the same token, the typewritten Macnagthen papers, which are in the posession of Lady Aberconway, must be regarded with some doubt- although emanating from the same source- until it is known why with any certainty who revised them and why."
(my emphasis in bold)

Don Rumbelow here says that he regards the "Aberconway" papers as subject to question, because of added "revision". He sees the papers themselves as having been "revised" at some time. He uses the words "must be regarded with some doubt".

I would like to know what other Ripperologists think of this comment. I first read a partial comparison between the two sets of papers in Stephen Knight's book, "The Final Solution". In this book, Knight, rightly or wrongly, disarms the case for Druitt. However, he does compare parts of the documents with each other. One part stands out, for me at least. This is from the 1983 2nd paperback reprint:-

Here is the Macnagthen Scotland Yard version.. I emphasise in bold type the differences...

" (1) A Mr M.J.Druitt, said to be a doctor and of good family, who disappeared at the time of the Millers Court murder, and whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st Dec.- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private info I have little doubt but that his family believed him to have been the murderer.

Here is "Farson and Cullen's version" (that is Knight's description, not mine)

"No.1 Mr M.J Druitt, a doctor of about forty-one years of age and of fairly good family, who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, and whose body was found floating in the Thames on 3rd December, i.e. seven weeks after the said murder. The body was said to have been in the water for a month, or more- on it was found a season ticket between Blackheath and London. From private information I have little doubt that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer, it was alledged he was sexually insane."

Knight says further...

"A further mistake is made in Farson's revised edition of his book, when the date of the finding of Druitt's body is changed yet again to the 13th December!. The real notes make no metion of a season ticket...."
(my emphasis)

A quaint choice of words from Mr. Knight. "The real notes".,,,, I leave you all to interpret this yourselves.

It is also noted that in the Scotland Yard version, Sir MM does not give ANY of the three suspects (Druitt, Kosminsky, Ostrog) an age.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Loftus letter

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'.

Hello Stewart,
Indeed, a re-reading does indicate that it was a reply to Donner's letter. However the fact remains that Lady Christabel Aberconway has denied having seen any JTR related papers.

If one surmises this. IOn 1959 she wrote to the New Statesman saying she had the papers, and they are the ones Farson saw, and apparently, Cullen saw (though I do not know if he saw the Farson copy of these papers or was in direct contact with LCA herself. Perhaps someone has a copy of "Autumn of Terror" at hand to enlighten me? Thank you.)

At sometime after 11th August 1972 then (see below), she denied having seen any JTR papers in replying a letter to Loftus. "He himself explicitly claimed to remember that what he had seen differed from the Aberconway notes, as described by Daniel Farson and Tom Cullen, although the name Druitt was the same." (quote, The JTR A-Z, 2010)

Loftus described then twice, once to Lady Aberconway 11th August 1972, and a statement in The Guardian, 7th October 1972.

There is no indication anywhere that Lady Aberconway had a muddled memory, nor that her age was a factor in her remembering or not. She was quite specific. She never saw any of her father's JTR related papers.

Was this a retraction, one can wonder? Can one compare this to Joseph Gorman Sickert's retraction when asked, after mounting questions? Lady Christabel Aberconway would not come out, one can imagine, with "it was a whopping fib", a la Sickert/Gorman. Was this was her educated and classy way of saying something without actually saying it? One can wonder. But this is, of course, is speculatory.

As regards the whereabouts of the Aberconway papers, can anyone please shed some light as to exactly when they were last seen and in who's posession? Some of us would greatly appreciate this. Thank you.

best wishes

Phil

[Scott Nelson]

You're pushing it, Phil.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Scott,

Would you kindly care to explain that comment further? Thank you.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

The Answer Lies in the Soil

Hi All,

Rhododendron hirsutum was the first rhododendron to be classified and named. It was discovered in the 16th century by a Flemish botanist, Charles l'Ecluse, who later became called Clusius.

Over the years growers catalogued many hybrids, including these–

'Jack the Ripper', 1937, Aberconway, Lord, Bodnant, Tal-y-Cafn, Wales
'Jack the Ripper Group', 1937, Aberconway, Lord, Bodnant, Tal-y-Cafn, Wales

Regards,

Arthur Fallowfield

[mariab]

I just found the time to read pp. 124-126 (kindly posted here by SPE) of The Ripper legacy by Martin Howells and Keith Skinner (1987), and this book implies that there might have been 2 Aberconway copies: 1) the one partly typewritten and partly handwritten by Lady Aberconway (discussed here and partly posted by Rob House earlier in this thread), originating from the 1930s (as proved by the examination of the paper), and 2) a later copy, supposedly entirely typewritten by Lady Aberconway's secretary, supposedly having ended in the hands of Farson (according to The Ripper legacy, p. 126.). As for 3)the original document, according to this book it might have ended up in India with Gerald Donner. Plus there's 4) the official document at Scotland Yard.
I'm sorry, but this makes far too many copies circulating around for me to be entirely convinced. Also the authors' argumentation that because the 2 handwritten sheets were numbered as “6a“ and “6b“, it automatically means that they were prepared by Lady Aberconway instead of Macnaghten doesn't necessarily make sense. And who's to say that the sheets of paper were not numbered at a LATER point, and is it the same hand who wrote the text AND numbered the sheets?

[Chris]

I just found the time to read pp. 124-126 (kindly posted here by SPE) of The Ripper legacy by Martin Howells and Keith Skinner (1987), and this book implies that there might have been 2 Aberconway copies: 1) the one partly typewritten and partly handwritten by Lady Aberconway (discussed here and partly posted by Rob House earlier in this thread), originating from the 1930s (as proved by the examination of the paper), and 2) a later copy, supposedly entirely typewritten by Lady Aberconway's secretary, supposedly having ended in the hands of Farson (according to The Ripper legacy, p. 126.).

I don't think Howells and Skinner were implying that these were two separate copies.

[mariab]

Chris,
I think they did. On p. 126 of The Ripper legacy it says:
By 1959 the need for discretion had somewhat abated, and this time she {Lady Aberconway} must have allowed a secretary to copy all the notes, which were then given to Dan Farson.
Is this total conjencture, or have the authors talked to Farson? And I REALLY can't imagine a Lady Aberconway breaking her back to help some researcher by having her own secretary transcribing the entire notes on her typewriter. By the way, was xeroxing yet invented in 1959? I'm pretty sure that not. I think xeroxing came out in the 1970s? Until then, everyone worked with carbon paper. (Wow, I looked it up and there have been experiments with copying machines since 1917, but obviously not industrialized.)

[Chris]

Chris,
I think they did. On p. 126 of The Ripper legacy it says:
By 1959 the need for discretion had somewhat abated, and this time she {Lady Aberconway} must have allowed a secretary to copy all the notes, which were then given to Dan Farson.
Is this total conjencture, or have the authors talked to Farson?

Sorry - I had missed that.

The authors did meet Farson, but "it was not a happy occasion." It seems as though they are basing their suggestion on what Rumbelow says about Farson and Cullen having seen a typewritten copy. But if so that's not very logical, as Rumbelow is specifically referring to "The notes that are still in her possession." And on top of that, Farson says "she had copied out" the notes he had seen, which sounds to me more like a handwritten copy than a typed one.

The other complicating factor is that it's not clear in what circumstances Cullen saw the notes. There doesn't seem to be any explanation of that in his book, or any acknowledgment of help from Lady Aberconway. It's worth bearing in mind that Farson believed that Cullen had stolen his notes on the case from Television House in 1959.

[mariab]

Chris wrote:
The authors did meet Farson, but "it was not a happy occasion."
I betcha.
Chris wrote:
The other complicating factor is that it's not clear in what circumstances Cullen saw the notes. There doesn't seem to be any explanation of that in his book, or any acknowledgment of help from Lady Aberconway. It's worth bearing in mind that Farson believed that Cullen had stolen his notes on the case from Television House in 1959.
Then maybe Cullen has the original Aberconway notes. Is he deceased?

[Chris]

Chris wrote:
The other complicating factor is that it's not clear in what circumstances Cullen saw the notes. There doesn't seem to be any explanation of that in his book, or any acknowledgment of help from Lady Aberconway. It's worth bearing in mind that Farson believed that Cullen had stolen his notes on the case from Television House in 1959.
Then maybe Cullen has the original Aberconway notes. Is he deceased?

Yes; he died in 2001:

http://www.casebook.org/authors/obituaries/cullen.html

I had been thinking more in terms of Cullen perhaps having seen a transcript made by or for Farson. It might explain why he told Rumbelow that the notes he had seen were typed. But who knows?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Dan Farson wrote, "In 1959 I became part of the Ripper story. This happened by accident. I was staying with Lady Rose MacLaren in North Wales and mentioned the television programmes I was preparing on the Ripper."

I was wondering what theme Dan Farson might have had planned for his 1959 Ripper TV programme prior to his fortuitous meeting with Lady Aberconway.

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

To Chris:
Thank you so much for the information.
Chris wrote:
I had been thinking more in terms of Cullen perhaps having seen a transcript made by or for Farson. It might explain why he told Rumbelow that the notes he had seen were typed. But who knows?
Of course, Farson might have had his portable typewriter along and transcribed the document with Lady Aberconway's permission.

Simon Wood wrote:
I was wondering what theme Dan Farson might have had planned for his 1959 Ripper TV programme prior to his fortuitous meeting with Lady Aberconway.
Perhaps something generic? If it was important, he would certainly have incorporated it somewhere.

[Chris]

I was wondering what theme Dan Farson might have had planned for his 1959 Ripper TV programme prior to his fortuitous meeting with Lady Aberconway.

He had a lot of anecdotal information about the murders from elderly East Enders, as a result of having broadcast an appeal for information in one of his previous documentaries. Quite a lot of it was still used, even after the discovery of the memorandum and the identification of Druitt.