|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Dr Bond's report - a fake?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Dr Bond's report - a fake?
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 12:18 pm |        | Dear Jacunius,
aka "Jack the Ripper"...wondered when you would turn up.
Think of this board as a Curtain of Fire...and those who pass through it unscathed... become one of the Immortals! But can you do it?
Or, forever hold your piece...
Rosey :-))) |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 02:12 pm | | From a post by Jacunius on Tuesday, June 12, 2001 - 10:17 am
"But where, Oh where is the official spokesperson, that would like to attach their name to this document, to state it is positively the real McCoy? Answer - none...so can I assume Jon that you are not an expert in document analysis? Hopefully the real ones are looking into it now, because I am thoroughly serious it could be a hoax."
On page 345 of The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion: An Illustrated Encycolpedia, by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner, Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc. (US) and Robinson (UK), 2000, anyone ("serious" scholar or just some ignoramus with US$35.00 to spare in his or her pocket) can read the following lines introducing the text of Dr. Bond's November 16, 1888 report on the findings of his post-mortem of "body of woman found in Dorset Street:"
"The following report relates to Dr. Thomas Bond's report of his initial post-mortem examination of the body of Mary Jane Kelly. The cover states:
[ommitted; the cover page disputed by Jacunius, and thus thrusting a diabolic shadow on the report that follows. The authors Evans and Skinner continue...]
This is followed by the report in Dr. Bond's own hand:"
So.
Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner say the report is in Bond's own hand. There's two noted and professional (and gee whiz! maybe they're serious, too!!) JtR scholars who state the report is written in Bond's handwriting. And they did so in a published book!
Now.
They don't say the cover page is written in Bond's own handwriting, so...hmmmm, maybe somebody forged the cover page!?
Mind, we have no proof of forgery at all; we simply have a case where the cover page may be in a different hand than Bond's. We must advance with the burning sword of truth to uncover the dimmed Glory of The Truth. After all, this is a case of "judging a book by its cover!"
Who could be responsible for this nefarious act of "forging" cover pages?
A list of suspects follows:
(1) Anybody who worked with Dr. Bond, such as a secretary, a medical associate, a medical student, his housekeeper...etc etc
(2) Anybody who touched the report, in its alleged prisitine condition without the cover page, noticed that Bond starts the report by saying, "Notes of examination of body of woman found murdered & mutilated in Dorset St." Said forger realized Bond had written the title at the top of his report but left no room for police administrivia to date, stamp, sign, and counter-sign the official report. So said, the alleged forger creates a cover page which reads as follows:
16 Novr 1888
Dr. Thos:[sic] Bond
7 BroadSanctuary [sic]
S.W.
Whitechapel Murder
Result of Post Mortem
examination of body of woman found in Dorset Street.[sic]
Mr. Anderson
Seen ¬ed. [double sic, if there is such a thing...not being a serious scholar meself, how's I to know such a thing!]
The text on the cover page that I've rendered in bold is an almost exact match of Bond's first sentence (or title) to his report. The only curiousity lies in:
(a) the date: is it the date the report was submitted by Bond; the date the cover page was created for administrivia to slap their mark on the report, noting the report's official receipt; or...Jacunius might fill in the blank here
(b) Mr. Anderson gets a line all on his own; why? Is he the man who had "Seen ¬ed." the report? Is he the man who created the cover page to begin with? Is it an acknowledgement that the cover letter originated and the report now resides in Mr. Anderson's good auspices? Or Jacunius might fill in the blank.
(c) "Seen ¬ed." By whom? What does the act of seeing and noting mean in this case? Is it mere administrivia? Is it to be construed that, unlike other reports, somebody in 1888 actually bothered to see and note the report's receipt? Or, to go further in perilous Jacuniosian speculation, did some pretentious entity actually read and act upon the contents of Dr. Bond's report, which happened to be received (or had it's cover page created on) November 16, 1888, a mere 7 days after the murder?
Jacunius writes: "And who knows maybe Yaz is right, it might just be one from 1888 - God knows why, but wouldn't that be a headline!"
I can read that headline now:
Absolutely Nothing New Learned in Probe of JtR Post-mortem Report -- story on E-28
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 03:02 pm | | Hi, Yaz and Ally:
Yaz, actually, I had already quoted the passage in Evans and Skinner's The Ultimate in which the authors said the document was written "in Dr. Bond's own hand" and yet Jacunius persisted in the claim that no one in authority had verified that the report is in Dr. Bond's writing. Certainly, Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner are two of the most eminent and well-published authorities in this field who are well used to studying and publishing on documents related to the Whitechapel murders. Their skills and expertise are without question. Or is Jacunius daring to impugn their integrity along with the charges he/she has made against Donald Rumbelow?
Unfortunately, in the broadbrush campaign that Jacunius has launched, he/she is, without basis, questioning the expertise of established Ripperologists. This is a most unfortunate and uncalled-for smear campaign by someone who so far has not shown they have anything to say about the case except a series of innuendos and accusations.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 03:10 pm | | Hi, Yaz:
The wording of the clerical annotation on the outside of the Bond report that you have quoted is the sort of standard annotation done in British government offices throughout the nineteenth century for letters and documents received. It is utterly typical and not in any way out of the ordinary.
In addition, the broad geographic locator "examination of body of woman found in Dorset Street [sic]" is reasonable since Dorset Street was the main road off which the body was found in a small court. In terms of filing the report, it made more sense to label it with the name of the road with which the policemen would have been more familiar than a less known cul-de-sac called "Miller's Court."
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 03:11 pm | | | If Evans and Skinner say its in Bond's handwriting then thats good enough for me ! |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 03:48 pm | | Hey Chris:
Unfortunately, my sarcasm gets the better of me at times. I have no problem with anything on the cover...including what it says, the way it's said, in whomsoever's handwriting, etc.
But I do think Jacunius should look very carefully at the very least what those three lines mean, and I believe he or she will realize something very important...there is no mystery.
Bond did not produce his own cover for his report, which was needed for administrivia, and so someone else produced one.
Why Jacunius doesn't believe JtR writers, researchers, historians, scholars, etc (yourself, Jon, and doubtless others included)...well, that is the real mystery, isn't it?
No more from me then on Jacunius or the topic of forged official documents unless and until Jacunius:
1) presents his or her own credentials so that we all can see that J's opinions supercede those of Evans and Skinner (or anyone else)
2) presents any evidence of any kind to demonstrate that forgery is even possibly present (in this case or any other matter concerning JtR-related official documentation)
3) describes whatever test or procedure, along with the names or occupations of those tests and/or testers, that would satisfy J's belief that forgery is suspected or proven in this case (or any other)
If Jacunius does at least those three things, we'll talk; otherwise, I walk.
Yaz |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 03:54 pm | | Hi there Chris,
Missed your previous post about Evans and Skinner. Guess that means that I can only echo Simon's post above. Oh well..it was intriguing while it lasted. Sigh.
Ally |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 07:38 pm | | For anyone who is interested, I contacted Stewart about the cover sheet for Bond's report.
Firstly the cover of the report is a standard file cover with 'H' DIVISION' across the top.
This suggested to me that it was attached to Bond's report on the day it was received, Nov 16th. at 'H' Division.
Someone wrote "Mr. Anderson, seen & noted"
Anderson would hardly call himself 'MR.' so I take this as written by the desk clerk(?) at 'H' division on receipt of the report.
However there is more.....according to Stewart the "seen & noted" note is initialized with 'JM' (James Monro) and the initials below 'RA' are for Robert Anderson with an annotation "From Ch. Insp. Swanson 23.4.89", which appears to be in Swanson's hand, according to Stewart.
Viper:
I appreciate you putting him/her (J.) straight on a few details.
Why do I think it won't do any good.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 10:06 pm | | Dear Jacunius,
Jeff is fine for my nomenclature. And thanks
for the reference to the McCracken book, which
I will try to look up. I work for a New York
State agency as an investigator. Unfortunately,
I am not trained for studying documents with the
trained eye of a specialist. The facts I wrote
of in that small article about a possible
connection between A STUDY IN SCARLET and the
Goulston Street writings I still believe to be
correct, but I did see was not universally believed when I brought it up about two months
ago. Thank you kindly for your support of it.
There was one little matter I was curious about.
When you said that the stamped date on the report
was November 16, 1888, was the "6" in "16" clearly
a "6" or was it possibly too smudged and could it
have been a "0" as in "10". This is just a matter
of curiosity with me.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 10:23 pm | | Dear Peter,
Lost royal heirs are found all over English
history before Hannah Lightfoot came along, and
certainly before the stories of Stephen Knight
and Joe Sickert (or for that matter, my recent
rediscovery of the forgotten Clarence Gordon
Haddon). Was the Duke of Monmouth the legal
son of Charles II and Lucy Walters (did that
birth certificate in the casket ever really
exist?). Were Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel
imposters or the real King Edward V and his
brother the Duke of York? There are others, some
of whom never made any real problems (Henry VIII's natural son, the Earl of Richmond, was one). And there will probably be others in the
future.
By the way, outside the mysteries just mentioned
(and such continental ones as whether Kasper
Hauser was the heir to the throne of Baden)I
can think of only two cases of lost heirs in
the 19th Century that fascinate me. One is the
notorious case of Roger Ticheborne and the imposture of Arthur Orton. The other is the fate
of the oldest son of Sir William Congreve, the
military rocket expert of that century. His
oldest son disappeared about 1860. Check out
the biographical note on Congreve in Boase's
Modern English Biography.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Author: Jacunius
Wednesday, 13 June 2001 - 08:25 am | | Post Script,
I can not stress any further, at how important Dr. Bond's 'annexed report' remains in the eyes of the many, who quote from it, rely on it and vice versa. I am well aware what is said in 'The Ultimate JTR', and highly commend the authors painstaking research into translating it to a complete sourcebook. Where it is stated that the document is in Bond's own handwriting, can easily mean that it was written - not typed. I am also not discarding Evans & Skinner's ability to authenticate such Victorian documents, as I presume they must have compared it to other handwritten reports within the case file, done by Bond. But have either of them come forward to say;
"Yes everyone, you can now move on to nit-pic with something else, because we can officially say tests were done, the ink is right, and the writing is definitely not a forger imitating Bond."
THEY HAVE NOT!
Would you not think that this is enough, to suggest that they have not done this? What I am proving, is that it is quite possible, since it had been filed there for at least a decade?; so there was no need to test it's authenticity because it was presumed to be real. Is that not possible?
So I reiterate, let them speak for themselves, or someone in authority with the Know-how (not Jon with the Know-all!) Who can definitely say beyond a doubt that it is genuine.
If not, then it shall remain with a sealed fate of -
'A HUGE BIG QUESTION MARK'
????????????????????????
I rest my case until it is verified.
And no,
I can not do it, as I am on the other side of the Planet.....dam it!
PPS, Was Kelly's heart found on her pillow, I remember it mentioned somewhere.....still looking, and no Jon it has nothing to do with my theory.
Yours
most autocratic,
Jacunius. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 13 June 2001 - 12:39 pm | | Jeff:
Lost Royal heirs are really only important after the 15thC when a more structured form of inheritance began to be instituted. (Before this period it was very much on the lines of who got there first with the biggest army.)
The Tichborne Claimant is an extraordinarily interesting case and I have been trying for the past two years to persuade a couple of TV companies to use it as a story. It's not impossible that the Claimant was actually Sir Roger Tichborne and of course we could probably prove or disprove this today if the current Doughty-Tichbornes would consent to a dna test. Although as HP Wilkins has suggested, if the Claimant was actually a Tichborne of the Bar Sinister, that might complicate things.
I don't think messrs Warbeck and Simnel were the real thing and I understand that there's a move to investigate further the bones presumed to be of the Princes, currently at Westminster. Hopefully any investigation would ignore the lamb and chicken bones found in the same place.
And speaking of Henry VIII, perhaps his daughter Elizabeth wasn't really his daughter at all but was the Bisley Boy?
There's no grounds for assuming Kaspar Hauser to be a noble German, cheated out of his birthright: if you want to dispose of someone, you bop them on the head, not keep them underground.
But as a professional hunter of mysteries and missing heirs you interest me concerning Congreve and Clarence Gordon Haddon. Could you elucidate? You can always send me a private email if you don't want to clutter up the boards.
Incidentally, Capt. Kidd didn't bury his gold on Oak Island and it wasn't a Masonic Plot either! |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 13 June 2001 - 03:55 pm | | The following quotations (hereafter, Q) are from a post by Jacunius on Wednesday, June 13, 2001 - 08:25 am:
Q: "I can not stress any further, at how important Dr. Bond's 'annexed report' remains in the eyes of the many, who quote from it, rely on it and vice versa."
Answer: This falls into the "Duh, tell me something else I don't already know!" department.
Q: "I am well aware what is said in 'The Ultimate JTR', and highly commend the authors painstaking research into translating it to a complete sourcebook....I am also not discarding Evans & Skinner's ability to authenticate such Victorian documents, as I presume they must have compared it to other handwritten reports within the case file, done by Bond."
Answer: Glad to hear it. Why, since you praise these two gentlemen so lavishly, need any of us doubt their word, their expertise, their scholarship, their research, etc etc and follow you call for another expert's opinion or other tests?
Q: "Where it is stated that the document is in Bond's own handwriting, can easily mean that it was written - not typed."
Answer: What part of "in Dr. Bond's own hand" confuses you, Jacunius? They do not say it was just "handwritten." The report is "in Dr. Bond's own hand"!!!!!!!!
Q: "But have either of them come forward to say; "Yes everyone, you can now move on to nit-pic with something else, because we can officially say tests were done, the ink is right, and the writing is definitely not a forger imitating Bond." THEY HAVE NOT!"
Answer: Oh? And you read the entry in the Ultimate JtR Companion? You read Chris' post which mentioned this to you, and probably Jon, and many others, recently myself? And still you say, "THEY HAVE NOT!"
Request
Since the Ultimate JtR entry isn't sufficient, and 80 people quoting those two men Jacunius says he or she respects isn't sufficient, could someone do the following:
1) write to Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner
2) include the following statement in the post (along with a brief explanation of why Jacunius is desirous of hearing these fabled words):
[begin cut]
"Yes everyone, you can now move on to nit-pic with something else, because we can officially say tests were done, the ink is right, and the writing is definitely not a forger imitating Bond."
[end cut]
3) ask if they would simply repeat these words verbatim for Jacunius' benefit
That should clear up this tempest in a teaspoon!
---------------------------------
MJK's heart was the only organ reported missing. But there are plenty of surprises for you to be found under MJK's pillow. Better spend your time reading the bloody hieroglyphics left behind by MJK's murderer than trying to persuade us the ocean is made of sand and the desert is filled with water.
Yaz |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 13 June 2001 - 04:10 pm | | Yaz,
I e-mailed Stewart.
Ally |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 05:58 am | | Sorry, but I'm not going to be bothering Keith with this typhoon in a buffoon. Perhaps Stewart will - or perhaps he won't.
Don't worry too much about Jacunius - he has a lot of growing up to do, ripperwise, and Keith is very understanding about such things. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 07:18 am | | Thanks, Alegria. And thanks too, Caz...knowing J, he/she would probably think Keith's answer (since Keith relies on others to place his posts here) was forged anyway.
Yaz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 08:05 am | | Hi Yaz,
J probably wouldn't be the only one who might think Keith's responses (and the posts I send him) are forged - or tampered with, or stolen, or.....
Love,
Caz |
Author: Alegria
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 05:11 pm | | Hello all. I have received an e-mail from Stewart that I had intended to quote directly, but apparently the black hole that surrounds my missives when using snail-mail has now attached itself to my e-mail as well. Translation: my computer has been having meltdowns lately (2 yesterday  ) and my old mail is not being saved. I will therefore paraphrase him because although I remember his statement he used some MePO number that I can't remember. If it is anyway incorrect to his sentiments, I will immediately change it. He further said that although he doesn't mind my quoting him, he has no intention of entering into the discussion and he doesn't think that Rumbelow gives a darn either.
Short and sweet:
There is no doubt as to the validity of the document in question. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 07:08 pm | | As far as Stewart is concerned I can imagine frequent bouts of rolling on the floor laughing his a** off broken by the occational gestures of hands raised in total despair.
Likewise. |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 07:24 pm | | There we have it. Jacunius has provided us with his test, the names of his testers, and the result he wished to see.
Although as imperfect as the surviving record of the JtR case, I believe Jacunius' idea has had its test, one of the Ultimate JtR authors has replied (and, if I may presume since they co-wrote the volume, I believe the one answer would apply to them both), and J has a genuine answer to that test:
The report attributed to Dr. Bond is, in fact, a product of Dr. Bond's post-mortem, and is written in his own handwriting...as has been stated probably countless times before.
Hopefully, we can all move on to more fruitful lines of inquiry.
Thank you, Alegria. And thank Stewart as well, please.
My apologies also to Jacunius for dragging this farce out for so long.
Yaz |
Author: Jacunius
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 09:56 pm | | "NEWS FLASH!"
Jacunius is back, and I shan't quit ripping into this discussion till I do get buckled!
So thanks to Alegria's post; Thursday, June 14, 2001 - 05:11pm, we now know the outcome of this most 'dragged out farce', according to Yaz, and also that 'Hopefully,we can all move on to more fruitful lines of inquiry'...yes I wish that were so.
According to Alegria's post (as stated above), she received an e-mail from Stewart Evans. And whatayouknow, she has a computer meltdown, something I too am all to familiar with. But although she remembers Evans statement (who couldn't at a sentence of 13 words), well at least I know your hair isn't blonde this week Ally! she does not quote the MEPO number he gave. For all its worth I still wonder what the importance of it would be - oh well must not be.
Now for the big one everyone's been waiting for, drum roll please....
"There is no doubt as to the validity of the document in question."
Can I rely on your memory, or did you just believe it said 'no'? Also Evans or Skinner wouldn't want to enter a discussion like this for, I am sure, many varied reasons.
Conclusion: Still does not answer my question whether the document in question, that being the 'annexed report', has been thoroughly tested. If I was Evans or Skinner, I wouldn't want some jumped up little nit-picker questioning this either. But neither would I want to confirm that the ink was tested etc, etc, etc if I had not done it. This still has not been confirmed!
BE FACTUAL!
Yours
seeking the truth,
Jacunius. |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 06:03 am | | Jacunius,
First it needs to be made clear that the confusion here is due to my error not Stewart's. He was clearly stating in his e-mail that there was no doubt that Bond's report is valid.
You will find that for the majority of people here, that is sufficient and they will consider the matter settled even if you do not.
I realize that this is less than satisfying for you and perhaps you would like the 'proof' of knowing what tests and whatnot were conducted, however Stewart clearly considers this a non-issue and doesn't feel it is worth bothering with.
That does not keep you from doing the investigation and tests yourself if you feel this is a viable road to solving the case. Good luck in your quest.
Ally |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 08:36 am | | Jacunius:
I only went through this farce because you seem unable to comprehend what you have read in Evans and Skinner's book (or from other JtR writers, researchers, scholars and novices)!
You have had your answer. There is no question or issue about forged Bond reports for most of us.
As Alegria says, if you still believe the report is a forgery, go out and pay to have the handwriting analyzed and come back with the "proof" of what you currently claim without any proof (or even reasons).
The burden of proof lies with you and you alone. No one has any question to answer...except you. And no one is going to do your work for you.
Last word from me on this non-issue.
Yaz |
Author: Jacunius
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 08:45 am | | Thanks Ally,
For making it clearer, I definitely appreciate your input. However until I get this one stamped with an a Okay, I will always regard this document with suspicion. In the meantime I will have to treat it as if it were real. I just hope that when the day comes when someone takes the initiative to look into it, and it turns out to be fake, they will not forget little ol' Jacunius.
Yours
to one & all,
Jacunius. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 10:04 am | | Are you in England, Jacunius? If so, for God's sake get yourself down to the PRO speedliest and have a look at the document. Ask if you can see the original under supervision if you're not satisfied with the microfilm. Then produce some reason for doubting the validity of Bond's handwriting and signature.
Martin F |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 11:49 am | | | There's no substitute for sound personal research. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 12:17 pm | | | Perhaps more disturbing than the accusation that Bond's report is a forgery is the realization that it is genuine; it makes one wonder what other documents ended up in private collections and are now lost or are rotting away in some dresser drawer. The early years of Ripperology must have been a cutthroat (er..sorry) affair. I've read how Farson's dossier on Druitt 'went missing' when left with a receptionist, important documents lifted by curiosity seekers, etc. The conscientious collectors and archivists are the true caretakers of history, but, unfortunately, there is also the huge problem of the 'graverobber' mentality. What else is out there? |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 02:04 pm | | R.J.
You may or may not know that the missing 'dossier' was largely the work & research of David Anderson (hired by Farson), who I take to be the formost authority on Druitt.
I spoke with David two years ago and he told me about that episode, a story within a story you might say.
However, David also told me he was researching for another book on Druitt, his own this time and had found much to divulge.....
Regards, Jon |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 04:06 pm | | Hello all,
I swear. Next thing you know someone will be claiming The Diary was a hoax! Ha ha. Seriously, though, I fear I got this whole argument started sometime back when I simply asked who Rumbelow the Openshaw letter from, why he kept it for 30 years, and why he won't name his sources. I still feel these are valid questions that have gone unanswered. I also want to point out that I said I was sure Rumbelow has valid reasons for his secrecy. Of course, my knowing this information probably wouldn't do anything for me other than satisfy my curiosity, but when you're as nosy as hell like I am, that's enough!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Stewart and Keith's new book is gonna rock! |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 04:18 pm | | Is it really 'secrecy'?
Has anyone actually asked Donald?
Jon |
Author: Mark List
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 04:36 pm | | Tom,
Oh come now,
We all know the Diary is real,
I think that it is interesting that the diary is written the way it is, but I still think that we're all being TOO critical about the book.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear or have a valid point toward the diary itself, but I still think that we forget that it is possible for this kind of turn of events to happen to a real person.
True, the diary makes it abundantly clear to establish motive and "mood" like a Poe story (Tell-Tale Heart).
But, does anyone disagree with me that these kinds of emotions and thoughts could happen the way the Diary describes them?
Perhaps not in this case (it is SO complete, like a neat little package in the Diary) but to just someone out there in the world?
Mark |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 06:50 pm | | Tom - I thought Keith had explained about the Openshaw letter somewhere on the boards. Don Rumbelow has never sat on anything he has discovered: he has done us all tremendous service by unearthing numerous original documents - often as ignorant stand-in archivists (i.e. police officers who joined the force to combat crime and never expected to be told to spend time as uninterested clerks for historians) were on the verge of throwing them away to get more shelf space. What Don unearths he passes to the proper public repositories, and I believe that in the case of the Corporation of London archives in the Guildhall he also did the work of cataloguing them. The Openshaw letter has been in the public domain for yonks, but for some reason it either hadn't yet wound up at the Public Records Office, or the Public Records Office hadn't yet got it properly filed or catalogued or something. Anyway, the PRO laid on an exhibition of its 'new' material, and journalists (who also have more immediate things to concern themselves with than all the latest work on JtR) thought this meant it had just been discovered or released by Don.
The detailed Bond autopsy report on MJK, by contrast, really was completely unknown until 1987, at which point it was anonymously returned to Scotland Yard in a plain brown envelope, along with some other Ripper papers incluiding the original 'Dear Boss' letter, and some papers on the Crippen case. Given the report that the 'Dear Boss' was seen in the possession of Macnaghten's grandson Gerald M. Donner in the 1950s, the strong probability is that all these papers were purloined as souvenirs by Macnaghten. (It was reported by H.L.Adam that Macnaghten kept the Ripper victims' photographs in his office to show to visitors while he was Assistant Commissioner). While this provenance is partly speculative, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Bond report was any more faked than the other documents returned with it. It should be distinguished from the Bond comparative report on all victims which has always been on the MEPO files.
All the best
Martin F |
Author: Mark List
Monday, 18 June 2001 - 05:52 pm | | Am I to understand that a number of Ripper related information was just sitting around on a shelf or in a box, and someone was ready to throw it out to "make room"?
It sounds insane for someone to wish to throw away information on an unsolved case - no matter how old the case was.
Mark |
Author: Jon
Monday, 18 June 2001 - 06:01 pm | | Mark
My memory is a little jaded on this but I thought what was being thrown out was old unidentified records. It was Don who looked through the plates & papers and recognised Ripper material.
I don't think they were intentionally throwing out Ripper files.
I'm sure someone can correct or confirm this.
Regards, Jon
P.S. Ripper 'stuff' was not as well known or popular back in the 60's as it is today. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 02:58 am | | Hi, Mark:
In previous conversations with Stewart Evans, himself a former policeman with the Suffolk Constabulary and now of course one of the top authorities on the case, Stewart remarked that it is possible that a number of old case files have been discarded simply to make room for material on new cases. The old cases simply do not get the attention that a hot new case will get, and it is in the nature of bureaucracy to seek room for the new files. So that is one reason why the old materials get shoved to the side, mislaid, and possibly discarded. It is a matter of priorities, as much as we who study the case find it hard to conceive that the files on a case as famous as the Whitechapel murders might have been so treated.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 07:50 am | | Apropos the above, Keith Skinner and I once wandered into the Scotland Yard archives room to be greeted with cries of joy from the staff, as we were trusted outside researchers who could explain to Public Records Office employees then present just why an absolutely enormous collection of dead files (piled in boxes two deep covering one wall)shouldn't be thrown out to give the PRO urgently needed shelf space. The files in question were the Met's collection of Cannock Chase murders records: an investigation which was badly hampered by having three separate police forces involved and different enquiry centres. And being pedophile rapist 'stranger killings', the investigation generatd a vast amount of reports and interviews. We were able to point out that the very quantity of records was itself the great historical value of the collection. Like the Yorkshire Ripper case, this was one where a huge and intensely professional enquiry bogged down in the impossibility of accessing data from carousel files, and so the case was protracted while the police came under much undeserved criticism. The use of computers (notable the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System) finally solved this problem. Since the Met was not involved in the Yorkshire Ripper case, those files would never reach the PRO. And we urgently hoped that, regardless of space, the mountain of Cannock Chase information would be retained so that the future might understand why (e.g.) a Peter Sutcliffe might show up 9 times on the files without anybody being able to bring the different sets of notes together. (Perhaps one should add the the much abused Professor David Canter and his so-called 'offender profiling' with computers has also contributed substantially to bringing large major enquiries to speedy resolution).
Martin Fido |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 10:30 am | | Dear Martin,
Witness the Jill Dando murder enquiry where the
compooters selected the optimum solution on the basis of human input...wow! Another art-form.
No matter the efficiency of compooters...men make the decision to make an arrest on the basis of
'things' that compooters do not understand...
the Nightmare makes her nest in many trees.
Rosey :-) |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 10:11 pm | | The passing of time is an appalling thing. I've read that many of J.S. Bach's manuscripts were used as scrap paper--great masterpieces used to wrap fish in, to light fires, etc. How disheartening. So, in regards to the Whitechapel crimes, I reckon we should just be happy that so many Ripper documents were saved or rediscovered by a number of hard-working researchers.
Jon--Thanks for the information on David Anderson. I certainly hope he publishes his findings. Farson mentions him having found writing samples by MJD, along with photos of William Druitt, etc. It's nice to know he's still been at it all these years. |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 12:14 pm | | I believe it was Handel or Hayden (both composers that I easily get confused) who's wife cut up one of his manuscripts to make curlers for her hair (she didn't like his musical abilty all that much--it meant little to her!)
Mark |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 04:17 am | | Hi Mark,
Just as well a similar misfortune didn't befall Chopin and Lizt. Their wives could have used their manuscripts for a chopin lizt!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 12:19 pm | | That's Liszt.
And I'm a direct relative of his.
I believe my great-great-great grandfather.
And yes, thank God that his wife didn't burn anything of his, it would have robbed the world of such wonderful "Looney-Tune" cartoons.
-Mark |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 03:36 am | | Hi Mark,
I had a feeling I misspelled Liszt but I just couldn't put my finger on why it looked wrong.
So, we've got a little Liszt in our midst - that's wonderful!
My only claim to fame, composer-wise, is that my mother was taught music at school by Gustav Holst (hope I spelt that one right). The gals called him Gussie.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
