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]

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)?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Stewart P Evans]

Seen

...
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.

[Stewart P Evans]

As Stated

...
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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Keith Skinner

...
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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes

...
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.

[Jonathan H]

Sorry, 1898 backdated rewrite ...

[Jonathan H]

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.

[Chris]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

[Raoul's Obsession]

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.

[Phil Carter]

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

[Jonathan H]

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.

[Hunter]

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.