The Aberconway Version

[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.

[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)

[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

[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."

[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.

[The Good Michael]

Maria,

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

Mike

[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,

Your leg has been pulled so far that you will be walking in circles.

Mike

[mariab]

Michael,
EXACTLY what I was thinking.
(And that's what I got for being too lazy to read your entire post, instead of reading mainly about Ostrog.)

[PaulB]

The authors of the A To Z invite Trevor Marriott to write to them collectively at a-zauthors @ hotmail.co.uk (close the spaces in the address) in order to discuss his grievances with them.

[Ally]

Paul,

If I can make a suggestion, even though I know that is not your private email, I would recommend you request from Stephen or the mods that a space be inserted in the email address.

There are bots designed to roam the internet, gathering email addresses and you will get truck loads of spam at that address. Inserting spaces around the @ means they harvest an inaccurate email address.

Just a suggestion, feel free to ignore.

[PaulB]

Thanks Ally. I have done as you have suggested.

[Dr. John Watson]

Ally:

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions, which you did in a concise and professional manner. My understanding was that before this matter became an issue on Casebook, Trevor had tried to obtain a copy of the Aberconway document by contacting one or more persons whom he believed had a copy, and was rebuffed, which led to his bringing the matter to the Casebook boards, almost certainly to pressure those with the document into making it public. I cannot believe that he truly suspected dishonesty on the part of the A-Z authors, but rather was using the suggestion of same as a method of forcing release of the document. This was a big mistake on his part, and I'm sure he's learned from it. I can't help feeling, however, that all this could have been avoided if people had simply decided to help each other, rather than become adversarial. We are, after all, united in a search for truth, and over the years these boards have brought us together like a family. So let's act like a family, help each other out when we can, and forgive those who have erred.

The one good thing that has come out of all this is discovery of the long-lost Uberconway version! Thank you for that, Michael!

John

[Chris]

My understanding was that before this matter became an issue on Casebook, Trevor had tried to obtain a copy of the Aberconway document by contacting one or more persons whom he believed had a copy, and was rebuffed...

I asked you previously who you meant when you claimed someone had given Trevor Marriott "a run-around." You didn't answer.

If you are going to carry on posting these claims on Trevor Marriott's behalf, can you at least make it clear that he is not claiming that he has been in contact with the authors of the "A to Z"? Otherwise this is just going to increase the ill-feeling and compound the damage that's already been done.

As for the rest of it, the story makes as little sense as ever. Why on earth should he have publicly made "the suggestion" of dishonesty on the part of the "A to Z" authors (as you put it) to "pressure" them, rather than simply asking them privately? And if the problem was that he couldn't work out how to get a message to any of them - which frankly I find unbelievable - then when people suggested that he should contact them, why didn't he ask for advice on how to do so, rather than rudely rejecting the suggestion?

[The Good Michael]

The one good thing that has come out of all this is discovery of the long-lost Uberconway version! Thank you for that, Michael!

You're welcome. Sorry I can't publish it all. It's privately owned. Perhaps Trevor... nah.

Mike