The Aberconway Version

[mariab]

Michael,
I apologize profoundly, my newbie roots totally show, but what on earth is the “Überconway version“?!? I just thought you were joking when referencing this in your previous post.
With many apologies for being so clueless.

[The Good Michael]

Maria,

It's all in the Uber (sorry for no umlaut) or Ueberconway version.

Mike

[mariab]

To The Good Michael:
(with apologies for a small parenthesis in the thread, again)
Michael, where did you get the information about Michael Ostrog allegedly having pretended to have been Irish?! I haven't seen anything about him using an Irish con name anywhere on casebook or in The ultimate (which quotes The Police Gazette of October 1888), or in Sugden. I'm very sorry, but I don't have the October 1994 issue of Ripperana with D.S. Goffee's The search for Michael Ostrog. Nor have I had the time to go through the Ostrog threads. I was supposed to research Ostrog in the Paris police and tribunal records this week, but due to a change of venue it'll have to wait until March. As for Ostrog's alleged medical knowledge, it appears that it was nothing more than pretense.

[Chris]

He could also have sent Keith a note via any of his active publishers - as Trevor should know, being a published author himself.

Indeed, by an ironic coincidence Trevor Marriott's publisher is also the publisher of the "A to Z."

[caz]

...Mr. McLaren... has asked that it be posted to still rumors and it is apparently not being done.

Hi Ally,

Well it doesn’t look like McLaren is all that bothered, or he could have worked out how to post the damn thing on the net by now and done it himself. I’m sure he is quite happy for Keith to arrange for its publication in his own sweet time, when Keith is good and ready and not too busy with other commitments. If someone else with a copy does it in the meantime it would save Keith and McLaren the job.

But I notice that McLaren’s request was made in private and directed to Keith, and he made this clear in his private letter to Clever Trevor, which Simon Wood posted publicly in the banned one’s absence:

I have heard that there have been rumours that it had been stolen from my family. This is untrue…

…In view of the recent rumours I have asked Mr Skinner to publish it on the internet, where it would be available to all.

Now this is instructive, because McLaren could simply have sent Trevor a copy if he'd wanted to, and let him ‘publish it on the internet, where it would be available to all’. But he didn’t do that, and his concern appears to have been for Keith over the false theft rumours. Simon has done Keith a favour here by posting the proof, from the horse’s mouth no less (albeit via Trevor, the horse’s arse), that the rumours were false. Much more powerful coming from Simon and Trevor than if Keith had tried to post anything in his own defence to the same effect. But that’s really not his style and he doesn't post anyway, so all’s well.

I find it ever so slightly arrogant if people are sitting here expecting Keith (or someone else with a copy) to drop everything for them and publish the full version of a document that they were not previously champing at the bit to see, or not until very recently. Isn’t it enough for now to know that it has not been stolen by anyone, could hardly be in safer hands and will be available before too much longer? I'm not including you here, but some people seem to have gone back to the age of four!

Trevor states that he attempted to contact Keith Skinner but was unable to secure his address from anyone -

Oh really, John? I would have passed on a message for Keith, as one of his co-authors, if Trevor had asked me. He didn’t even need to give me the message - he could have asked me to ask Keith to contact him. But he did neither. He could also have sent Keith a note via any of his active publishers - as Trevor should know, being a published author himself.

I have only read this thread so far, not the one where all the trouble surfaced. I'm late to all these goings-on, by the way, and for the record have not had any contact with Keith about this document - not that I would have expected any. I do know this is a very busy time for him and that he does his best when he can help out with something like this.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

While we wait for the Aberconway Version, I've decided to publish the important parts of the Uberconway Version, a version which not many know about. I've taken the liberty of underlining and putting into parentheses the significant changes from the other versions. Not knowing what differences are in the Aberconway Version, I can't comment on how the two documents differ.

Mike


Now the Whitechapel murderer had 5 victims -- & 5 victims only,(Officially speaking, but we know better, eh Anderson?) -- his murders were

(1) 31st August, '88. Mary Ann Nichols -- at Buck's Row -- who was found with her throat cut -- & with (slight) stomach mutilation. (She was wearing a St. Brigit's cross)
(2) 8th Sept. '88 Annie Chapman -- Hanbury St.; -- throat cut -- stomach & private parts badly mutilated & some of the entrails placed round the neck. (in the shape of a shamrock)
(3) 30th Sept. '88. Elizabeth Stride -- Berner's Street -- throat cut, but nothing in shape of mutilation attempted, & on same date (An Irishman wearing a yamulke was seen in her company, but it was left out of the official police report)
Catherine Eddowes -- Mitre Square, throat cut & very bad mutilation, both of face and stomach.(Writing was discovered which read: Baphomet was here, but the official description differs a bit)
9th November. Mary Jane Kelly -- Miller's Court, throat cut, and the whole of the body mutilated in the most ghastly manner --(Curiously, Hutchinson's birth name was O'Reilly according to sources)

The last murder is the only one that took place in a room, and the murderer must have been at least 2 hours engaged. A photo was taken of the woman, as she was found lying on the bed, withot seeing which it is impossible to imagine the awful mutilation.

With regard to the double murder which took place on 30th September, there is no doubt but that the man was disturbed by some Jews who drove up to a Club (Because he was Irish), (close to which the body of Elizabeth Stride was found) and that he then, 'mordum satiatus', went in search of a further victim who he found at Mitre Square.

It will be noted that the fury of the mutilations increased in each case (much like Fenian activity), and, seemingly, the appetite only became sharpened by indulgence. It seems, then, highly improbable that the murderer would have suddenly stopped in November '88, and been content to recommence operations by merely prodding a girl behind some 2 years and 4 months afterwards. A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum.

No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one. I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:

(1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.(witnesses suggest that he practiced self-abuse to a great extent whilst whistling 'The Rising of the Moon' and was, when not committing this egregious act, a great hurler and Gaelic footballer.)

(2) Kosminski -- a Polish Jew -- & resident in Whitechapel. This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the (Gentile) prostitute class,(a love for Danny Boy, Irish Stew, and Guinness) & had strong homicidal tendencies: he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'.

(3) Michael Ostrog, a Russian (Irish?) doctor, and a convict, who was subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac. This man's antecedents were of the worst possible type, and his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained. (his name in Irish, of course is Miche`al O'strough)

And now with regard to a few of the other inaccuracies and misleading statements made by 'The Sun'. In its issue of 14th February, it is stated that the writer has in his possession a facsimile of the knife with which the murders were committed. This knife (which for some unexplained reason has, for the last 3 years, been kept by Inspector Hale, instead of being sent to Prisoner's Property Store) was traced, and it was found to have been purchased in Houndsditch in February '91 or 2 years and 3 months after the Whitechapel murders ceased! (But had the engraving on it: Use it or lose it, Hutch, Signed: Flemming and Morganstone)

[Ally]

Well there you go. No one reads any more. That's the problem. I took the question more in lines of knowing who and how to contact but your point is well made.

I mean I don't know how to contact him for permission. Although if someone wants to send a copy of the Aberconway to me, and I ask very nicely and sweetly here, I would be glad to contact Mr. McLaren, and once I have ascertained his permission, I'd post the thing.

[Chris]

So how could he possibly have indicated he knew where the document was and who owned it, when he wasn't privy to the conversation?!!

As has been pointed out to me, there has never been any attempt to conceal the identity of the document's owner. The fullest account of the Aberconway notes is in The Ripper Legacy (1987) by Howells and Skinner, from which it was clear that it was held by one of Lady Aberconway's two surviving sons - and that son, Christopher McLaren, was named in the list of acknowledgments at the front of the book.

[Ally]

1. I am of course not referring to every mention ever in the history of the world or the boards, but in regards to this specific matter regarding the document being published in its entirety. Approx 10/19 was when the first general discussions about the document began and a couple of days later is when the first discussions of the "whole complete document" began to be raised and discussions of getting the thing in its entirety on the boards. By 10/23, suspicions that the authors were "hiding something" and that the document contained something they "didn't want us to see", they were being given "the run around" begin to crop up, and a week later, accusations that it was clear that someone had "snatched it" and other now deleted posts that implied that the documents had been stolen. Again, these were not by a single person but by a few.

2. Trevor was the person I spent two hours on the line with last night. He admitted that at no time did he actually attempt to contact the authors of the A-Z.

3. No, of course not, because as has already been mentioned several times in this matter, that person who had that knowledge was Keith Skinner and he doesn't post here. So how could he possibly have indicated he knew where the document was and who owned it, when he wasn't privy to the conversation?!!

However, unless you want to call Stewart Evans a liar when he says that once Keith became aware of the matter being discussed on the boards, Keith contacted McLaren and Stewart was waiting Keith's word to go ahead and post it, one can easily deduce that once the matter was raised on the boards, the wheels were set in motion to contact the only person who is capable of giving consent: Mr. McLaren. SOMEONE obviously contacted McLaren prior to Trevor contacting him, as Trevor's own posting at the beginning of the thread indicates, and McClaren indicates he has given Keith the go ahead to post it, so one can presume, if one uses or possesses the tiniest bit of logical deduction, that once Keith Skinner became aware of the questions, he contacted McLaren and asked to post the entire document.

One can also presume that at the absolute MOST we are dealing with 10-12 days during which time the following had to occur: Stewart contacts Keith and informs him, Keith contacts Mr. McLaren, and Mr. McLaren replies to Keith.
It can also be assumed that this relatively trivial matter does not contain a primary earth shattering degree of urgency to anyone but the pot-stirrers so it is hardly unreasonable, to expect that a few days might have passed between each contact and reply. In light of this, a few weeks grace period might have been considered reasonable before accusations or implications of thievery were put forth.

I do believe it might have gone better if Stewart had mentioned that he had contacted Keith and wheels were in motion to see about putting the document out. A lot of this might have been avoided if that had occurred but I can also see how, without a firm guarantee that it would occur, it was considered best not to offer false hope. Regardless, that does not alleviate others of the responsibility for their actions, in completely jumping the gun and presuming, without a degree or shred of evidence that the document had been stolen and that it was missing. And it does not alleviate them of the responsibility for failing to contact the A-Z authors in the first place and ASKING NICELY to see the document before they started snarking at them.

[Dr. John Watson]

Ally, thanks for an excellent summation of the Casebook activity concerning the Aberconway document, but a few issues are left dangling:

1. You didn't provide any dates, most particularly the date of the earliest posting on the matter.

2. You make the point that no effort was made to locate the document privately - in fact you state that as a certainty - yet you do not document your source for this; does Trevor say that in any of his postings? If not, who is the source of this information, and what is that person's authority?

3. Did you find any evidence in the postings that any person, with knowledge of the matter, identified by full name the present owner of the original document, or that any person with a copy of the original document made any offer or committment to publish that document as soon as permission could be obtained from the owner?

Curious John

[The Good Michael]

No, it's like thicker knickers. C'mon Dave!

Mike

[protohistorian]

Is Starchy bottom like rigid britches? Dave

[Monty]

You been Skyping 'that person' again Ally?

Jealousy reigns.

Monty

[The Good Michael]

One Week, that's all it took to go from "where is it" to "it was stolen and being hidden from us".

One week? The loonies are becoming more patient it would seem.

Mike

[Ally]

Following an interesting Skype call last night, I just spent an entertaining hour or so reading every post with the mention of Aberconway that has occurred on the boards, including the deleted ones.

Here is the flat bottom line. From the get go, people were decrying the lack of "transparency", and alluding to the fact that there was some hush-hush dealings going on, when bare and simple truth is this:

No one asked to see it from the very people that basic common sense would have told you should be approached and asked. No one asked publicly and no one asked privately.

In the third post on the Aberconway matter, there were already people implying that there was some sort of conspiracy and cover up when the simple truth is: NO ONE had done due diligence. No one had actually ascertained the document was in fact missing, no one had simply asked the people we all knew had a copy of it, if it could be shown. People, that's first grade manners. If you want to see something, ask nicely. But no one bothered.

There was no conspiracy. There was no lack of transparency. There was just a rush to judgment, there was simply: we want to see it, we haven't seen it, therefore it is being hidden from us....let's hurl accusations and stamp our feet. And I am not speaking of any ONE person here. There were half a dozen involved in this. It is not on one persons shoulders.

In one short week, between the time the document was first mentioned on these boards and before any reasonable person could conclude that the authors had enough time to become aware of the request, approach McLaren and get his permission, the situation had escalated to innuendo and implications of wrong-doing, outright theft and bilking people of family papers.

One Week, that's all it took to go from "where is it" to "it was stolen and being hidden from us". No reasonable person can look at the time frame, and think that it was a reasonable amount of time given for Keith Skinner to become aware of the problem, contact McLaren, receive a reply and act on it.

There was an absolute rush to judgment, with the conspiracy quacks stirring the pot and those outraged on behalf of Skinner and his professional reputation pouring gas on the flames which has led to this absolute mess of a situation.

Here's a lesson for you boys and girls. Next time before you get your panties in a twist and start screaming TRANSPARENCY!, think of Mrs. Starchybottom from first grade and remember to ask nicely before you throw yourself on the floor and start drumming your heels.

Peace Out.