McNaughten's Notes

[Phil H]

b) Was it not that Lady Aberconway who typed out the version shortly after her father's death and gave him(Farson) that copy when he visited? In which case, it must have been referred from either a) or c)..

That is the logical sequence - first the Donner "jottings"/rough notes (if they exist - they could be a reference to the originals from which Lady A typed her version. However, common sense suggests that a first rough plan would be a first step before penning a quite complex document - so I continue to leave open that possibility.

and as a) was not, as far as we are aware of, in existance at that time (after her father's death) and in India at the time (or so we are told) of Farson visiting, then it must have been c)..

Frankly, I don't follow that reasoning at all. It is quite logical for there to be more than one version of the memorandum,and for each of those to be in different places simulataneously.

which means the original version was handed in to SY after the copy was made, possibly even after Farson's visit?

I don't accept this. The MM on the file has context and content that is quite consistent with being put on file at the time of drafting. Why assume otherwise? My reading of the file copy has always suggested to me that it is a complex document with phrasing that a "forger" would have been unlikely to invent - the "3 suspects more likely that Cutbush" phrase, for instance.

And why put something on the file so late, if it was not there previosuly - and especially this document?

I believe we have provenance for both the Aberconway version and the file copy that is consistent and, to me at least, believable.

In addition, it may be important to recall that the original notes were NOT addressed to anybody either

A note for the file - in this case a memorandum - would probably not have been "addressed" to anyone.

I do not know the Met office procedures for 1888, but the usual practice when I was a young civil servant (started 1974) and the old procedures were still followed in my department of state, had communications received filed on the right hand side of the docket/file as what were called enclosures and numbered; and internal minutes and notes etc (effectively commenting on the enclosures) on the left.

, neither do they have a stamped "rec'd" mark, not a dated "rec'd" mark of the Met police upon them as with other official documents

Would we expect an INTERNAL memorandum to be date stamped (least of all with a time received)? I would expact administrators to put minutes/memos etc on the left without any such stamp - indeed that was what they were there to do. The left hand side of the file told you the "story" of the case - i.e it provided a narrative by means of comments and other notations by the officials concerned.

Enclosures were "protected" by an eclosure number in the top right corner, so removal of documents was less easy, and minutes etc on the left hand side were chronologically numbered. In my day there was usually a sheet on the left that listed enclosures on the right.

, which seems to indicate them being unofficially placed into the files, does it not?

On the basis of my experience and knowledge, I don't think this is a correct inference.

I need to say that others, SPE or Donald Rumbelow perhaps, would probably be better placed to give a substantive view on this than I. They will be familiar with the files and perhaps with the exact procedures followed. Procedures did and probably still do differ from department to department.

When I was doing post graduate research in what was then the Public Records Office (now National Archives) around 1973 - I spent many (happy) hours working through Foreign Office (FO) files from the 1870s to 1914.

In the FO, when a document was received the original was circulated to all relevant officials, most junior/desk officer first, PUS last) in a temporary jacket and comments were written on the cover. When returned to registry, the cover was removed and filed along with the relevant document in date order.

I am not, I repeat, NOT, saying I have the right of it here. But one thing I would emphasise - it is crucial in examining files etc, to understand the office procedures followed at the time. For instance, the SB registers are (as far as I can ascertain) simply a guide to individual and separate files. In reading the documents that may well be an important fact to remember. Documents should never be considered alone or out of context.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil and Chris,

Thank you for the comments and (Chris) your question.

Chris, if Lady Aberconway according to Farson gave him the copy having copied it out after her father died.. she must have copied it from something.
Therefore I can only presume that this was copied from the original document. As Sir MM died in 1921, it was therefore after this date she did this at some time. When, is uncertain, however.
As regards the internal stamp etc, no, there would not be a stamp on an internal document. But as above.. if Lady Aberconway made a copy after sir MM died, then surely it is logical to suggest the MM was handed in from the outside? Perhaps I am being presumptious?

Phil,

Thanks for the official procedures information. Most fascinating. Whether it is a "note for the files" or "intended for the Home Secretary" is surely dependant on its intention. If for the HS, then it would be addressed to him awaiting the time for its despatch, if needed?

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

[B]
So I say again, I believe a close scrutiny of the memorandum (in its various versions) might yield much fruit.

Phil

I agree with you just a shame that others out there who have possesion and control of the "Other" documents co-operate and wont allow this.

Now I wonder why now.

I think the term "Will not stand up to close scurutiny springs to mind again"

[Chris]

Chris, if Lady Aberconway according to Farson gave him the copy having copied it out after her father died.. she must have copied it from something.
Therefore I can only presume that this was copied from the original document. As Sir MM died in 1921, it was therefore after this date she did this at some time. When, is uncertain, however.
As regards the internal stamp etc, no, there would not be a stamp on an internal document. But as above.. if Lady Aberconway made a copy after sir MM died, then surely it is logical to suggest the MM was handed in from the outside? Perhaps I am being presumptious?

Sorry, but I don't follow this at all. The existing Aberconway version clearly isn't a copy of the version in the National Archives - the differences in wording are far too great to be explained as copying errors.

Why don't you think it's possible that the original of the Aberconway version went to the Donner family? Philip Loftus quoted Lady Aberconway as saying that her sister had taken all their father's papers. Isn't that the simplest explanation?

[Jonathan H]

To Glyn

As President Johnson once said privately of Viet Nam; if you have a mother-in-law, and she has only one eye and it's in the centre of her forehead, then you don't leave her in the living room when guests come around.

It's also important to consider that two of the most judicious, experienced and significant writers on this subject, Stewart P. Evans and Paul Begg, who rarely agree, do agree that my 'case disguised' theory is interesting and original but it's also conjecturual and ultimately unlikely.

Far more likely, they argue, is that Macnaghten's memory began to fade, and as it faded his original opinion that Druitt was not much began to mutate, to be revised, and to grow into into his own Sherlockish myth. Plus memoirs are always 'How I Won Waterloo' self-serving and unreliable, whereas the earlier, less melodratic opinion was official and thus more credible.

That's the last Druittist standing signing off.

[Phil H]

... if Lady Aberconway according to Farson gave him the copy having copied it out after her father died.. she must have copied it from something.
Therefore I can only presume that this was copied from the original document. As Sir MM died in 1921, it was therefore after this date she did this at some time. When, is uncertain, however.

I don't have my references with me, but as I recall Lady A was aware of the confidentiality of the memorandum and of its sensitivity. Parts of it were thus either typed out by her or handwritten by her, while her secretary did the less sensitive bits. This was done from an original document which MM had retained. As the whereabouts of this original are unknown, it uis often assumed that these were the rough jotting last seen in the possession of Lady A's son, Gerald Donner.

Whether it is a "note for the files" or "intended for the Home Secretary" is surely dependant on its intention. If for the HS, then it would be addressed to him awaiting the time for its despatch, if needed?

In my view the memorandum is NOT a brief for the Home Secretary or anyone else, as it is not addressed as such, nor in a form that would obviosuly serve as such. For instance the factual errors demonstrate that it has not been checked against the files - conclusive evidence IMHO that this was an internal document as an aid to memory - i.e. what it says on the tin, "a memorandum".

I think that what MM provided was a guide to defensive briefing (i.e for use in case of press/Parliamentary interest rather than for pro-active use). It may be that having read the Sun articles, or been asked by an associate "how do we deal with this?" - the potentially embarrassing Cutbush dimension perhaps. So MM sat down at his desk an wrote the memorandum.

First he scribbled down an outline to get his thoughts in order (possibly the Donner jottings) - then wrote long-hand a draft of the memorandum (the Lady A version original). Finally, he edited the draft and wrote it out again for the file, excising as he did emotion, personal comments and inclining the tone towards the detached civil service "voice".

The MM moemorandum is specific in not being a conclusion to the case and simply asserts three names as more likely than Cutbush - a totally satisfactory line to take in the House, or for a statement from a spokesperson. (the names of the individuals would not have been mentioned - just something like: "The police are aware of a number of individuals who are more likely than the person named in the Sun to have been..."

Officials could have drawn on MM's memorandum if required without further consultation with him - one use of a file note!

People sometimes argue that there is no evidence of MM ever being asked for or tasked to do this drafting. This misses the point.

The point is that senior administrators are expected to foresee and address issues that might arise on their own initiative. Here, I believe, MM was anticipating that the Home Secretary might require briefing at some point and thought through the line just in case. I do this all the time - if we see an issue in the media that might affect us i work with my communications colleagues to examine the likely approaches and sensitivities and to craft both lines to be used in response (should the issue be raised) and briefing so the the departmental press office understand the issues. How does this differ from what MM did?

I may think of some other useful things to say, but that'll do for the moment.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

No, the Aberconway version isnt a "copy" of the original, but I quote the A-Z..

"(Mrs Julia Donner) ..inherited the MM from which Lady Aberconway transcribed her surviving copy. Present whereabouts of Mrs Donner's copy unknown, but it seems likely to have passed to her son, Gerald Melville Donner, and might just be the version that he showed to Philip Loftus in 1950." (all my inflections)

The A-Z seem to presume that the version Aberconway copied from is the Donner version. We do not know this...Also, apart from the Loftus "sighting" in 1950 of the "Donner version" it has never been seen since.

As Aberconway copied from A version, then one would assume that the Donner version is identical with the Aberconway version if she copied from it. Yet this version has never seen the light of day since ONE, unsubstantiated sighting from Loftus. Yet it was not, according to Loftus himself, the same as the Aberconway version. He explicitly claimed to remember that what he had actually seen differed from the Aberconway notes in a letter to Lady Aberconway in 1972.

Curious still, is that Loftus recalls the details totally differently from the Aberconway version originally... there are three references. firstly he says it was in Sir MM's handwriting in the form of rough jottings, naming a Polish tanner or cobbler, also a man who went around stabbing young girls in the bottom with nail scissors and finally one MJ Druitt, a doctor of 41 years of age.. then in the 1972 letter says that the Pole was nick-named "Leather Apron", the bottom stabber was "probably Thomas Cutbush" and that Druitt was named "Michael".

Yes Chris, it would be the simplest explanation if Loftus hadn't said that the version HE saw was different from the Aberconway version. But he did.

So if Aberconway made a copy.. from which example did she make the copy from, as each copy is different from the copy she made?

best wishes

Phil

*Edit: Phil H suggests above the possibility of her having made the copy from an "original" form of the MM that he had retained. This has never been seen.

[Chris]

No, the Aberconway version isnt a "copy" of the original, ...

I thought you were suggesting above that the Aberconway version was a copy of the version now at the National Archives, and that therefore the latter must have been returned to Scotland Yard after the Aberconway copy was made.

It may be that what Loftus saw was a third document - not the MEPO version and not the original of the Aberconway version - but I find it difficult to see how Macnaghten could have written some of the things he described, even in the roughest of jottings. It seems more likely that he was misremembering some of the details, under the influence of subsequent Ripper reading.

In any case it seems likeliest that the original of the Aberconway version went to the Donners, whether or not a third version went with it too.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

That Aberconway made her version from the MEPO, original, and that version (the MEPO version) was indeed handed in to the Archives after that version was made, yes, that is what I am suggesting. As she made a version that is different from both the "Donner" version and the "MEPO, original" version, it is possible.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

That Aberconway made her version from the MEPO, original, and that version (the MEPO version) was indeed handed in to the Archives after that version was made, yes, that is what I am suggesting. As she made a version that is different from both the "Donner" version and the "MEPO, original" version, it is possible.

Then I don't understand why you think the text of the Aberconway version is so different from that of the MEPO version.

[Phil H]

Yet if Loftus' recollections have any merit, there was a third version - logically this could have been an initial outline.

Given (for arguments sake at least) that the MM on the file has always been there since it was composed, then Lady A copied from an earlier draft which was an unedited first version of the file version (this explains the differences and would be a logical way for a civil servant to work). This draft was retained by MM after retirement and descended to his family. It or maybe another retained set of jottings then passed to Donner.

Which reminds me that someone asked earlier where I thought any additional documentation might come from. What I was thinking of was:

a) unexpected finds in books belonging to key players - MM's library (gentlemen had libraries in his day) must have gone somewhere. That is how we got the marginalia. Books might have letters or papers interleaved by accident or design - a letter relevant to a page in a memoir, for instance. these could come from Oxfam or auction sales. (Only recently a rare Mozart published score was found; I recall years ago Jon Bunyan;s Bible being bought in a north London street market hitherto unrecognised.

b) the contents of attics of large houses, or the return of items removed from the files (as in 1888).

c) further discoveries of files in official archives hitherto unrecognised (because of titles, whereabouts etc. As with the SB registers. Large organisations which move and are re-structured, as the police have been, can easily lose sight of older records and files. the staff that created, used or knew of them retire or move and no one knows until there is a need for space etc.

d) discoveries by families of papers which had been unrecohnised - maybe the role their forebear played in the JtR case has been forgotten.

e) initiatives such as that which curious4 has been promoting here on Casebook to get people to look at old documents they have - especially families with a link to the case.

f) discoveries on e-bay etc - as with the Dutfield's Yard photo.

There may be many more opportunities.

Phil

[Phil H]

That Aberconway made her version from the MEPO, original, and that version (the MEPO version) was indeed handed in to the Archives after that version was made, yes, that is what I am suggesting. As she made a version that is different from both the "Donner" version and the "MEPO, original" version, it is possible.

To me this is the creation of a totally unnecessary conspiracy theory.

It is needed neither logically, practically nor by Occam's razor (the simplest theory is the one to adopt).

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

Your definition of conspiracy on this lies in what you read into it. I only see a daughter returning notes pertaining to the case, in private. Where's the conspiracy? Sharpen the razor.

However, you are entitled to your opinion. I await your explanation of further documentation concerning the MM possibly coming to light, as you stated earlier.. if I havent missed this?

best wishes

Phil.

[Phil H]

However, you are entitled to your opinion. I await your explanation of further documentation concerning the MM possibly coming to light, as you stated earlier.. if I havent missed this?

Scroll up 3 or three posts.

Your definition of conspiracy on this lies in what you read into it. I only see a daughter returning notes pertaining to the case, in private. Where's the conspiracy? Sharpen the razor.

That would be to interfere with an official file - would have required the involvement of civil servants or policemen, should have been noted on the file and thus - if not - was intended to mislead or misdirect. The files are part of the public record - to do such a thing would be highly irregular.

I would put my life savings (admittedly only 25p - but then I'm a public servant) on the fact that the MM memorandum had been on file since 1894, or whenever he penned it.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

Thanks, I did indeed miss the posting. My apologies.

As regards irrregularities, in my limited 52 years on this planet, a name, especially a titled name, helps with everything. Titled people get treated differently.
If, and this is pure speculation, Lady A contacted the then top man at the Yard, privately, and handed it over without fuss and bother.. I see no problem with him doing it for Lady Aberconway, daughter of Sir Melville. None whatsoever. If the Commissioner of Scotland Yard sent for the Ripper files, and rumour has been that every new one once did...then what is to stop the man either taking from or putting back into a file? Nothing. and nobody.
Nobody is likely to report the man.
Old boys clubs have shown far worse. Scratching backs, doing favours.. and the dear old police are not beyond helping out here and there on the quiet.

They started takling stuff out of the files from way back. Putting something back, at that time, the 1950's onwards, would have been easy.
Those files were even lent out to private persons in the 1960's, and returned back.
Additionally, no-one supervised the reading of the original files from the 70's until the middle of the 80's, when all the purloining was noticed and all was transferred to film.

best wishes

Phil