The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Clearly, Swanson did own two different color pencils, and the forensic report states that it is believed that the two additions in different colors were made some time apart

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And I keep asking……..based on what? No chemical analysis was done. You can’t assume a distance of time on the basis of 2 pencils being used. The different pencils could have been used on the same day. You seem to find this complicated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not obsessed with the name, but you would think that two high-ranking Scotland yard officers namely Magnaghten and Swanson would have at least known the full name of this so-called prime suspect. MM was Swansons immediate superior and he mentions this man Kosminski in two documents but at no time does he mention his full name and then in he second he writes about exonerating him.

You cannot keep burying your head in the sand, you have to face up to the facts as they are known, and stop hypothesizing

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not writing the Christian name doesn’t mean that he didn’t know it. Unbelievable silliness.

[Trevor Marriott]

And I keep asking……..based on what? No chemical analysis was done. You can’t assume a distance of time on the basis of 2 pencils being used. The different pencils could have been used on the same day. You seem to find this complicated.

And you need to take the blinkers off!

The forensic expert states that in his opinion the entries were not made at the same time

Dr Davies

These observations cause me to conclude that these two sets of entries were written at different times and that the set one entry was written first.

Dr Davies quoted in Forensic Science report

: “What was interesting about analyzing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

And you need to take the blinkers off!

The forensic expert states that in his opinion the entries were not made at the same time

Dr Davies

These observations cause me to conclude that these two sets of entries were written at different times and that the set one entry was written first.


Dr Davies quoted in Forensic Science report

: “What was interesting about analyzing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You can quote that all you like Trevor but it doesn’t explain how he could have correctly claimed that two pieces of writing in the same book were written years apart without the benefit of chemical analysis, so purely from looking at the handwriting? I think that he might have been misquoted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And you need to take the blinkers off!

The forensic expert states that in his opinion the entries were not made at the same time

Dr Davies

These observations cause me to conclude that these two sets of entries were written at different times and that the set one entry was written first.

Dr Davies quoted in Forensic Science report

: “What was interesting about analyzing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The crux of the point is this quote which was directly from Davies report and not just a press release:

"This may mean that the Set 2 entries were written some time after the Set 1 entry but I am unable to determine any more precisely what the time interval between these entities may have been."

So, as I’ve already said, the interval might have been minutes or hours or days later. There’s nothing remotely suspicious about that. Nowhere in Davies actual report does he say that the second set were written years later.

It looks like the quote using the word ‘years’ was an inference by the author of the press release based on what Davies said about the tremor and the use of ‘some time after.’ But I’ll stress again, Davies does not mention years in his actual report.

Its also worth quoting this:

"I understand that Swanson was born in 1848 so that when the Set 1 entry was written he would have been at least 62 years old; the Set 2 entries, if written later, could have been written as late as the early 1920s when Swanson would have been in his early seventies, he died in 1924."

So Davies was saying that if written later then theoretically there could have been a gap of 8-12 years between the two sets but note the phrase “if written later.” Clearly Dr. Davies wasn’t even sure that there was an interval between the two sets.

Now would be the appropriate time for you to wave the white flag on this one Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

The crux of the point is this quote which was directly from Davies report and not just a press release:

"This may mean that the Set 2 entries were written some time after the Set 1 entry but I am unable to determine any more precisely what the time interval between these entities may have been."

So, as I’ve already said, the interval might have been minutes or hours or days later. There’s nothing remotely suspicious about that. Nowhere in Davies actual report does he say that the second set were written years later.

It looks like the quote using the word ‘years’ was an inference by the author of the press release based on what Davies said about the tremor and the use of ‘some time after.’ But I’ll stress again, Davies does not mention years in his actual report.

Its also worth quoting this:

"I understand that Swanson was born in 1848 so that when the Set 1 entry was written he would have been at least 62 years old; the Set 2 entries, if written later, could have been written as late as the early 1920s when Swanson would have been in his early seventies, he died in 1924."

So Davies was saying that if written later then theoretically there could have been a gap of 8-12 years between the two sets but note the phrase “if written later.” Clearly Dr. Davies wasn’t even sure that there was an interval between the two sets.

Now would be the appropriate time for you to wave the white flag on this one Trevor.

But there is a doubt just as there is a doubt about the marginalia itself

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But there is a doubt just as there is a doubt about the marginalia itself

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Only for someone who is convinced that the ID never happened. The odds are in favour of the marginalia being genuine (Davies is clear on this) and if that’s the case then either Anderson and Swanson were both liars or that the ID did indeed occur but we just have no surviving details and if they couldn’t convict on the basis of the ID then to others in the know it would just have been a case of yet another lead which went nowhere. No more important than Isenschmidt or Grainger or any number men who were at one time in their sights.

And perhaps the witness said something like “well it looks like him” at first leading the police to expect a positive ID but then on reflection he started having doubts for whatever reason and so he was unwilling to send a man to the gallows on such uncertainty leading the police to assume that it was because the suspect was a fellow Jew? I think that it might be us that are magnifying this incident as if it was something huge and far ranging. If they ended up consigning Kosminski to an asylum is it so surprising that the police might have wanted to keep this fact to themselves? The public would have expected the killer of 5 women to have gone to the gallows and not to have lived out his life in an asylum. Isn’t it possible to image the outrage or even hysteria? The public might even have asked ‘what if he manages to escape?’

It’s all down to how we attempt to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. And yes I’m speculating here but we have no choice in the absence of solid evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

Only for someone who is convinced that the ID never happened. The odds are in favour of the marginalia being genuine (Davies is clear on this) and if that’s the case then either Anderson and Swanson were both liars or that the ID did indeed occur but we just have no surviving details and if they couldn’t convict on the basis of the ID then to others in the know it would just have been a case of yet another lead which went nowhere. No more important than Isenschmidt or Grainger or any number men who were at one time in their sights.

And perhaps the witness said something like “well it looks like him” at first leading the police to expect a positive ID but then on reflection he started having doubts for whatever reason and so he was unwilling to send a man to the gallows on such uncertainty leading the police to assume that it was because the suspect was a fellow Jew? I think that it might be us that are magnifying this incident as if it was something huge and far ranging. If they ended up consigning Kosminski to an asylum is it so surprising that the police might have wanted to keep this fact to themselves? The public would have expected the killer of 5 women to have gone to the gallows and not to have lived out his life in an asylum. Isn’t it possible to image the outrage or even hysteria? The public might even have asked ‘what if he manages to escape?’

It’s all down to how we attempt to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. And yes I’m speculating here but we have no choice in the absence of solid evidence.

But you cant understand that for the police to organise such a parade and the manpower required to take the suspect to the seaside home, not to mention the staff at the home who would have to have been aware of the parade was a mammoth task and would have involved a significant number of officers of varying ranks and those directly involved in the investigation ie Abberline,Reid and Dew would have been either involved in some capacity, or they would have been aware of the outcome yet not one of those makes any mention of it having taken place in the way described what do you not understand about that? and don't rely by saying they were told to keep quiet.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you cant understand that for the police to organise such a parade and the manpower required to take the suspect to the seaside home, not to mention the staff at the home who would have to have been aware of the parade was a mammoth task and would have involved a significant number of officers of varying ranks and those directly involved in the investigation ie Abberline,Reid and Dew would have been either involved in some capacity, or they would have been aware of the outcome yet not one of those makes any mention of it having taken place in the way described what do you not understand about that? and don't rely by saying they were told to keep quiet.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That’s your interpretation. What ‘organising’ would have been required? A couple of officers to take him. And as I’ve suggested, those at the Seaside Home might have been told that this was an ID for something unrelated to the murders. You keep exaggerating just to make it seem implausible. This could have been done with minimal staff.

[Trevor Marriott]

That’s your interpretation. What ‘organising’ would have been required? A couple of officers to take him. And as I’ve suggested, those at the Seaside Home might have been told that this was an ID for something unrelated to the murders. You keep exaggerating just to make it seem implausible. This could have been done with minimal staff.

So how do you explain the fact that no other officer who was directly involved in the investigation made no mention of any such Id parade taking place in the way described in the marginalia so what did all of these officers say in later years

October 23rd 1888

Sir Robert Anderson, Ass. Comm, Met Police said:

“But that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kindis extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.”

November 4th 1889

Sir Robert Anderson in the Pall Mall Gazette in an interview with American journalist: “Our failure to find Jack the Ripper as they call him.”
This is the same Sir Robert Anderson who in his book published in 1910 and up until that time had stated on many occasions he knew the identity of the Ripper but didn’t name him.

November 1890

James Monro following his resignation as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, November 1890 stated:

“The police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper.”

May 1892

In Cassell’s Saturday Journal Chief Inspector Abberline is quoted:

“Theories! We were lost almost in theories; there were so many of them.”

June 1892

Sir Robert Anderson in Cassell's Saturday Journal, 1892 stated:

“The mention of this appalling sequence of still undiscovered crimes.”

February 1893

Eastern Post and Daily Chronicle, Superintendent Thomas Arnold said:

“We had some of the finest men from all parts of London, but all their efforts were useless.”

May 1895

At that time Swanson who led the Ripper investigation when interviewed by the Pall Mall Gazette at this time however stated:

“The Whitechapel Murders were the work of a man who is now dead.”
So this in itself must eliminate Aaron Kosminski as he was institutionalized at that time and he didn’t die until 1919. October 1898

Detective Inspector Sewell on his retirement in 1898 in The East London Advertiser

“Although the identity of the man was never discovered, most of us believed he was a sailor, who came to London on pretty frequent intervals. When the crimes ceased in London, they commenced after a short period abroad, and generally, they were in or near a port”

March 1903

Chief Inspector Abberline now retired and living in Bournemouth in speaking to the Pall Mall Gazette:

“We have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic or anything of that kind.”Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

September 1908

Speaking retrospectively to the Daily Chronicle Sir Robert Anderson said:
“I told Sir William Harcourt that I could not accept the responsibility for the non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes.”

April 23rd 1910

Detective Inspector Reid speaking in Lloyds Weekly and The East London Observer

“ Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders. I challenge anyone to prove that there was a tittle of evidence against man, woman or child in connection with the murders, as no man was ever seen in the company of the women who were found dead.”

East London Observer 1910

“What should we do if it were proved that beyond all doubt Jack the Ripper was dead? We should have to fall back on the big gooseberry or the sea serpent from stock. Some years ago Major Griffiths in his book “Mysteries of Crime and Police” endeavored to prove that “Jacks” body was found floating in the Thames seven weeks after the last Whitechapel murder on the last day of the year 1888. Considering that there were considered to have been nine murders. I think it is wonderful that the man’s body should have been found in the Thames before the last of the murders was committed

1910
Major Henry Smith, retired City of London Police Commissioner
“The Ripper ...completely beat me and every Police officer in London." and that "...I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago."

February 4th 1912

Detective Inspector Abberline speaking again in Lloyds Weekly:

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal 'Jack the Ripper’, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr Anderson, Dr Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

1913
Chief Inspector Henry Moore speaking in The Police Review magazine

"Well, so far as I could make out he was a mad foreign sailor, who paid periodical visits to London on board ship. He committed the crimes and then went back to his ship, and remembered nothing about them" (Feigenbaum) ????????????????

1938
Walter Dew a Whitechapel Detective actively engaged in the investigation of the murders, and would later be instrumental in the arrest of Dr Crippen. In his book titled “I Caught Crippen,” he refers to the Whitechapel murders in a chapter titled “The Hunt for Jack the Ripper” and states

“Since 1888, many people have written on the subject of the Ripper's uncanny escapes, some of them putting forward their own theories. I was on the spot, actively engaged throughout the whole series of crimes. I ought to know something about it. Yet I have to confess I am as mystified now as I was then:
One big question remains to be asked, but, I am afraid, not to be answered. Who was Jack the Ripper?
I was closely associated with most of the murders. Yet I hesitate to express a definite opinion as to whom, or what the man may have been.
He may have been a doctor. He may have been a medical student. He may have been a foreigner. He may even have been a slaughterman, and so on.
Such speculation is little more than childish, for there is no evidence to support one view any more than another.

I would urge you to stop this relentless pursuit to show this ID parade took place as described in the marginalia

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

There's two questions that need to be asked. Is the marginalia sound? No. Was Kosminski the Ripper? No.

[FISHY1118]

I’m not saying that conspiracies can’t be true only that people can fall into a certain kind of thinking when pursuing them. All caution can get thrown to the wind. Alleged ‘links’ are discovered or plucked out of thin air. With the JFK thing we have a conspiracy that would have had to have involved 100’s of people and yet 70 years later nothing solid has been produced as far as I can see. So we have a conspiracy where they didn’t even bother with an escape plan for Oswald. They left him free to roam and to potentially blab but at no time does he ever say “it wasn’t just me,” or “I was set up.” . Then coincidentally on the route that we know that he took to the cinema a policeman was shot before Oswald was arrested with the actual gun on him. Then we get Ruby’s ‘planned assassination’ where he stopped off to mail some money to one of his strippers before going to the police station where, if Oswald hadn’t requested a jacket, he would have missed seeing him. Some plot. It makes absolutely no sense to me. But hey, perhaps it was planned by Laurel and Hardy?

100s ? I doubt that , only a hand full of top Mafia mob bosses ,CIA ops , and Dallas police offials. 3 top marksmen need know






Did the Warren Commission ever show proof that LHO fired ''The rifle'' that killed jfk . NO....... Did later paraffin test conclude he did not fire any rifle on the 22nd Nov .Yes



Sgt. Gerald Hill, who was at the scene of the Tippit murder, identified spent shells as belonging to an .38 automatic, not revolver.

Also the FBI lab said that the firing pin on Oswald’s revolver was defective and would not strike the cartridges with sufficient force to have fired them. Makes sense when you consider he tried to fire the revolver in the theatre but it never discharged !!



When asked if he killed the President Oswalds reply is No , i havent been charged with that .







If Rubys intent was to kill Oswald and he somehow got wind he would be at the police station, what difference does it make if LHO requsested a jacket or not?. He could have stopped for a glass of water ,take a pizz, do his shoe lace up , Ruby would have just waited till he arrive at the spot he kew he would be coming out . Lets leave Laurel and Hardy to the funny stuff .



Joseph A. Laydon Jr.

Former Wilderness Survival Instructor at U.S. Army (1991–1994)

JFK Assassination (November 1963): What is the most compelling evidence that Oswald was not the only shooter?

On 22 November 1963 at 1230 in the afternoon – Central Time, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in his motorcade as it travelled through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. Here’s the controversy: Was Lee Harvey Oswald the lone assassin? Here’s my answer: Not only NO, but HELL NO, TIMES 100 TO THE 10th Power!!!!!!

He never fired a shot. This comes from my training, experiences, and teaching sniping to snipers who were dang good shooters to average shooters (still above average compared to the average soldier). Here’s why I say multiple shooters were involved in assassinating JFK. Let me break it down for you.

Sniper System: True sniper systems are “accurized.” They are modified so there is NO UNNECESSARY MOVEMENT in the weapon. All working & moving parts of the weapon are polished & tailored for precision performance. The iron sights and telescopic sight are tailored for that specific weapon. The weapon used by Lee Harvey Oswald was a simple bolt action, Italian carbine, Carcano Model 91/38 that fired a 6.5mm X 57mm bullet with a velocity of 2,300-feet per second. The Carcano Model 91/38 was not a sniper system but a regular battlefield weapon for regular troops. It was initially designed back in the 1800s.

Moving Target: JFK is a moving target. Targets can be hit all day long at that short range (approximately 81-meters (265-feet) when it’s static. But a moving target is more difficult to hit, especially a very precise aim & hit target like the head, the throat and from a higher elevation (a moving vertical angle shot) from the 6th floor (60-feet elevation). To date, NOBODY, NOBODY, one more time, NOBODY has ever replicated what Oswald supposedly did on 22 November 1963. In 1967, CBS hired 11 professional marksmen to replicate Oswald’s marksmanship – again, NOBODY NOBODY could replicate what Oswald supposedly did on 22 November 1963.

Oswald – Expert Marksman?: Documents can be doctored but an eyewitness is stone cold proof that Oswald was a poor marksman. According to an eye witness – former Marine Nelson Delgado, Oswald was “a pretty big joke” because he got a lot of complete misses. Another Marine Sherman Cooley “If I had to pick one man in the entire United States to shoot me, I’d pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There’s no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas.” And the 2nd top sniper (Top Sniper - US Army Adelbert Waldron – 109 confirmed kills) in the Vietnam war – the famous Gunnery Sergeant Carlos N. Hathcock II with only 93 confirmed kills.

Hathcock reconstructed the JFK assassination at Quantico, Virginia (Marine Corps Scout Sniper School). “I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did.”

'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

Never more appliable than with JFk


In the end it comes down to this, people who believe the warren commission and people who dont, if the WC is to be believed and Oswald did fire the fatal shots that killed kennedy ,how is it that Hathcock , Waldron and many other expert couldnt duplicate it ?

Off topic thread [my apologies] , so ill leave it at that and only post any reply on a related thread

[Darryl Kenyon]

So how do you explain the fact that no other officer who was directly involved in the investigation made no mention of any such Id parade taking place in the way described in the marginalia so what did all of these officers say in later years

October 23rd 1888

Sir Robert Anderson, Ass. Comm, Met Police said:

“But that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kindis extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.”

November 4th 1889

Sir Robert Anderson in the Pall Mall Gazette in an interview with American journalist: “Our failure to find Jack the Ripper as they call him.”
This is the same Sir Robert Anderson who in his book published in 1910 and up until that time had stated on many occasions he knew the identity of the Ripper but didn’t name him.

November 1890

James Monro following his resignation as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, November 1890 stated:

“The police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper.”

May 1892

In Cassell’s Saturday Journal Chief Inspector Abberline is quoted:

“Theories! We were lost almost in theories; there were so many of them.”

June 1892

Sir Robert Anderson in Cassell's Saturday Journal, 1892 stated:

“The mention of this appalling sequence of still undiscovered crimes.”

February 1893

Eastern Post and Daily Chronicle, Superintendent Thomas Arnold said:

“We had some of the finest men from all parts of London, but all their efforts were useless.”

May 1895

At that time Swanson who led the Ripper investigation when interviewed by the Pall Mall Gazette at this time however stated:

“The Whitechapel Murders were the work of a man who is now dead.”
So this in itself must eliminate Aaron Kosminski as he was institutionalized at that time and he didn’t die until 1919. October 1898

Detective Inspector Sewell on his retirement in 1898 in The East London Advertiser

“Although the identity of the man was never discovered, most of us believed he was a sailor, who came to London on pretty frequent intervals. When the crimes ceased in London, they commenced after a short period abroad, and generally, they were in or near a port”

March 1903

Chief Inspector Abberline now retired and living in Bournemouth in speaking to the Pall Mall Gazette:

“We have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic or anything of that kind.”Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

September 1908

Speaking retrospectively to the Daily Chronicle Sir Robert Anderson said:
“I told Sir William Harcourt that I could not accept the responsibility for the non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes.”

April 23rd 1910

Detective Inspector Reid speaking in Lloyds Weekly and The East London Observer

“ Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, that I challenge him to prove, and what is more it was never suggested at the time of the murders. I challenge anyone to prove that there was a tittle of evidence against man, woman or child in connection with the murders, as no man was ever seen in the company of the women who were found dead.”

East London Observer 1910

“What should we do if it were proved that beyond all doubt Jack the Ripper was dead? We should have to fall back on the big gooseberry or the sea serpent from stock. Some years ago Major Griffiths in his book “Mysteries of Crime and Police” endeavored to prove that “Jacks” body was found floating in the Thames seven weeks after the last Whitechapel murder on the last day of the year 1888. Considering that there were considered to have been nine murders. I think it is wonderful that the man’s body should have been found in the Thames before the last of the murders was committed

1910
Major Henry Smith, retired City of London Police Commissioner
“The Ripper ...completely beat me and every Police officer in London." and that "...I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago."

February 4th 1912

Detective Inspector Abberline speaking again in Lloyds Weekly:

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal 'Jack the Ripper’, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr Anderson, Dr Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

1913
Chief Inspector Henry Moore speaking in The Police Review magazine

"Well, so far as I could make out he was a mad foreign sailor, who paid periodical visits to London on board ship. He committed the crimes and then went back to his ship, and remembered nothing about them" (Feigenbaum) ????????????????

1938
Walter Dew a Whitechapel Detective actively engaged in the investigation of the murders, and would later be instrumental in the arrest of Dr Crippen. In his book titled “I Caught Crippen,” he refers to the Whitechapel murders in a chapter titled “The Hunt for Jack the Ripper” and states

“Since 1888, many people have written on the subject of the Ripper's uncanny escapes, some of them putting forward their own theories. I was on the spot, actively engaged throughout the whole series of crimes. I ought to know something about it. Yet I have to confess I am as mystified now as I was then:
One big question remains to be asked, but, I am afraid, not to be answered. Who was Jack the Ripper?
I was closely associated with most of the murders. Yet I hesitate to express a definite opinion as to whom, or what the man may have been.
He may have been a doctor. He may have been a medical student. He may have been a foreigner. He may even have been a slaughterman, and so on.
Such speculation is little more than childish, for there is no evidence to support one view any more than another.

I would urge you to stop this relentless pursuit to show this ID parade took place as described in the marginalia

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor may I ask you a few questions
1 - Do you believe that Kosminski was never a suspect, person of interest if you like ?
2 - If you believe Kosminski was never a suspect, person of interest why do you believe that MM mentioned him in a document naming three people who where more likely to have been the ripper than Cutbush ?
3 - If you believe Kosminski was a suspect why do you believe he was a person of interest say ?
4 - Do you believe that Anderson is referring to Kosminski in TLSOMOL ?
5 - If you believe Anderson is referring to Kosminski why pick on him if you believe he wanted a scapegoat and not someone else who on the surface would seem more feasible [ Druitt, Tumblety perhaps ]
5 - Do you believe the whole of the marginalia to be false or just part of it , and if only part which part ?

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

100s ? I doubt that , only a hand full of top Mafia mob bosses ,CIA ops , and Dallas police offials. 3 top marksmen need know

Its still more than would have needed to be aware of an ID parade in 1888. But I’d certainly stick with 100’s. What about the supposed ‘fake’ secret service men on the Grassy Knoll seen by liars like the former military guy who said that he dropped the ground as soon as he heard the shots only to find that film footage taken from the other side of the road showed that there was no one standing where he claimed to have been standing. What about the Warren Commission who were alleged to have been ‘in’ on the cover up? There were lots of researchers involved.

Did the Warren Commission ever show proof that LHO fired ''The rifle'' that killed jfk . NO....... Did later paraffin test conclude he did not fire any rifle on the 22nd Nov .Yes

The Dallas police performed a paraffin test on Oswald’s hands during his interrogation. It came back positive for nitrates and gunpowder residue on his hands.

Sgt. Gerald Hill, who was at the scene of the Tippit murder, identified spent shells as belonging to an .38 automatic, not revolver.

The four cartridge cases that were found at the scene of the Tippit murder were tested by the Warren Commision and the HSCA firearms experts who concluded that they came from Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons. And just to remind you, this was the revolver that Oswald admitted to collecting when he went back to his rooming house. He also had 5 matching live cartridges in his pocket at the time of his arrest. So our conspirators must have sneakily taken the gun from Oswald without him knowing it, killed Tippit, then planted it back on him.

Also the FBI lab said that the firing pin on Oswald’s revolver was defective and would not strike the cartridges with sufficient force to have fired them. Makes sense when you consider he tried to fire the revolver in the theatre but it never discharged !!

When asked if he killed the President Oswalds reply is No , i havent been charged with that .

Many people plead innocent at first so we can’t read much into that. What we can ‘read into’ though is that at no time during his confinement did Oswald talk about being set up or about being a part of a conspiracy.

If Rubys intent was to kill Oswald and he somehow got wind he would be at the police station, what difference does it make if LHO requsested a jacket or not?. He could have stopped for a glass of water ,take a pizz, do his shoe lace up , Ruby would have just waited till he arrive at the spot he kew he would be coming out . Lets leave Laurel and Hardy to the funny stuff .

You miss the point. If Oswald hadn’t asked for his jacket and an officer hadn’t had to go back to get it, then he would have been in the car/van and gone by the time that Ruby got there. No one could have known that Oswald was going to ask for this. So unless Oswald was conspiring with Ruby and the police on an elaborate suicide plot then we can safely say that there was no organised plan to kill Oswald here.



Joseph A. Laydon Jr.

Former Wilderness Survival Instructor at U.S. Army (1991–1994)

JFK Assassination (November 1963): What is the most compelling evidence that Oswald was not the only shooter?

On 22 November 1963 at 1230 in the afternoon – Central Time, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in his motorcade as it travelled through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. Here’s the controversy: Was Lee Harvey Oswald the lone assassin? Here’s my answer: Not only NO, but HELL NO, TIMES 100 TO THE 10th Power!!!!!!

He never fired a shot. This comes from my training, experiences, and teaching sniping to snipers who were dang good shooters to average shooters (still above average compared to the average soldier). Here’s why I say multiple shooters were involved in assassinating JFK. Let me break it down for you.

Sniper System: True sniper systems are “accurized.” They are modified so there is NO UNNECESSARY MOVEMENT in the weapon. All working & moving parts of the weapon are polished & tailored for precision performance. The iron sights and telescopic sight are tailored for that specific weapon. The weapon used by Lee Harvey Oswald was a simple bolt action, Italian carbine, Carcano Model 91/38 that fired a 6.5mm X 57mm bullet with a velocity of 2,300-feet per second. The Carcano Model 91/38 was not a sniper system but a regular battlefield weapon for regular troops. It was initially designed back in the 1800s.

Moving Target: JFK is a moving target. Targets can be hit all day long at that short range (approximately 81-meters (265-feet) when it’s static. But a moving target is more difficult to hit, especially a very precise aim & hit target like the head, the throat and from a higher elevation (a moving vertical angle shot) from the 6th floor (60-feet elevation). To date, NOBODY, NOBODY, one more time, NOBODY has ever replicated what Oswald supposedly did on 22 November 1963. In 1967, CBS hired 11 professional marksmen to replicate Oswald’s marksmanship – again, NOBODY NOBODY could replicate what Oswald supposedly did on 22 November 1963.

Oswald – Expert Marksman?: Documents can be doctored but an eyewitness is stone cold proof that Oswald was a poor marksman. According to an eye witness – former Marine Nelson Delgado, Oswald was “a pretty big joke” because he got a lot of complete misses. Another Marine Sherman Cooley “If I had to pick one man in the entire United States to shoot me, I’d pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There’s no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas.” And the 2nd top sniper (Top Sniper - US Army Adelbert Waldron – 109 confirmed kills) in the Vietnam war – the famous Gunnery Sergeant Carlos N. Hathcock II with only 93 confirmed kills.

So you dismiss Oswald’s military records as ‘doctored’ but go for the word of individuals? This is conspiracist thinking in a nutshell. He was an above average shot. The problem is that people have been claiming some phenomenal act of marksmanship on a moving target but it wasn’t. Three shots - one missed the target completely, one missed the target (the head) and hit Kennedy in the back and one hit Kennedy in the head while the car was moving directly away, so basically a stationary target. Numerous experts have stated that this was no problem. And it has been recreated and improved on.

Hathcock reconstructed the JFK assassination at Quantico, Virginia (Marine Corps Scout Sniper School). “I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did.”

'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

Never more appliable than with JFk


In the end it comes down to this, people who believe the warren commission and people who dont, if the WC is to be believed and Oswald did fire the fatal shots that killed kennedy ,how is it that Hathcock , Waldron and many other expert couldnt duplicate it ?

Off topic thread [my apologies] , so ill leave it at that and only post any reply on a related thread

We have umbrella’s being used as signals, we have men firing from storm drains, we have Woody Harrelson’s dad being claimed as the sniper, we have Garrison identifying about 20 snipers being involved! We have LBJ being involved, Hoover being involved, rogue police officers being the killer, the Mafia, the CIA, the Texas oil men hiring Mexican assassins. Where does it end? With group of conspirators putting a gunmen behind a picket fence near numerous bystanders who could have decided to go and apprehend the killer or at the very least told investigators that the shots came from there. They might also have been able to have given a description of him. They have him standing with a huge car park full of cars behind him where at any time someone could have parked up or gone to his car and seen the killer or even tried to apprehend him. This killer who stood on muddy ground but didn’t leave a single print or mark. And did they have a car waiting to spirit Oswald away from Dallas as even the dimmest of plotters would have done? No they leave him wandering around catching a bus then leaving the bus when it got stuck in traffic to jump into a taxi to take him to his rooming house. But does he get dropped outside the door? No he gets dropped a distance away then walks back. He then picks up a revolver, as any innocent man would do, and just happens to pass a police officer who is killed with the same gun. A gun, like the rifle, which was ordered via mail by an Alex Hidell (who didn’t exist) And what name was on the card in Oswald’s pocket? Yup, Alex Hidell. How many rabbit holes have to be opened up to try and disprove the obvious? It’s madness. Oswald was clearly guilty. To quote Blackadder, he was “as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.”

Anyway, we all have our opinions, let’s dump the JFK stuff and return to Kosminski.

[Bridewell]

But if as has been suggested the ID witness was Lawnede then Major Smith could not have failed to know about it, and if as I have suggested the ID was that positive then as has been written in the marginalia the suspect was watched day and night by City officers then again Major Smith could not have failed to be aware, which as I have continually stated makes the marginalia unsafe to rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor.

I haven't said the marginalia are safe to rely on. The information therein may, or may not, be an accurate historical recollection. The marginalia are, therefore, unsafe to rely on but also not safe to ignore - because their accuracy (or inaccuracy) is an unknown. As you said to Scott in an earlier post we don't know what Major Smith believed. We also don't know why he made no reference to the incident in his memoirs. Perhaps it was because the incident didn't happen or perhaps it was because, for reasons of his own which we don't and can't know, it occurred, but he chose to make no reference to it. I have already given one possible reason why he might make that choice; another would be if one of his officers was the ID witness and had not come forward when he should have done after the Eddowes murder. It's unlikely but it can't be discounted.

In summary, we know Major Smith didn't mention this incident but we don't know why. Your suggested reason may well be right but it's not the certainty you claim it to be.